Luke 2:2 Holding
Generally, Inerrantists here are going to be as rare as Black, Jewish Bhuddists in Coeur D'Alene Idaho. So Con arguments, which are useful in testing the strength of Pro arguments, will sometimes need to be Imported here just like Hawaii has to Import Fuel.
Regarding the Contradiction of Luke 2:2 I think Ramsey has written the best Con article (which Carrier is thoroughly familiar with). Miller's related article is like a virus, unable to stand on its own and merely trying to attach to bits of a whole Pro argument in order to sustain itself.
As near as I can tell the best freely available Con argument is Holding's which isn't that much better than Miller's and is likewise not a whole argument but merely selective and vague commentary on indirect commentary on Miller's commentary on an unknown person's commentary on parts of Carrier's article which is here:
Note that the biggest problem with considering a possible Defense here is trying to figure out exactly what defense is claimed and who is claiming it. This Type of Misdirection is intentional by Holding and is an Apologetic technique designed to move Focus away from a direct examination of the claimed contradiction and trying to create Doubt. The nature of Apologetics is to try and shift Doubt from the Verse being examined to the Examiner claiming error.
The first Defense offered is that "Luke" refers to the supposed first time that Quirinius was some type of leader of Syria, which was when Herod the Great was still alive, and Josephus refers to the second time Quirinius was some type of leader of Syria. Here are the related Key Points:
1) Miller claims there is an extant inscription indicating that someone held leadership positions in Syria twice in the general time period. Holding corrects Miller to concede the inscription doesn't say there were leadership positions twice in Syria, only that the second position was Syria (this is probably representative of Holding's superiority over Miller).
2) The potential defense as filtered by Holding is that the unidentified location of the first leadership position is Syria which Quirinius could have held.
In the related detail Holding gives no indication of whether he thinks Defense here is Probable or just Possible. In his grand conclusion though he implies that the Defense is Probable here:
"Our provisional conclusion: This is a complex topic and Carrier's definitive "it didn't happen" conclusion is unwarranted. The conclusions of Porter ("...there is growing evidence from what we know of ancient census-taking practices to believe that in fact Luke got far more right in his account that he got wrong") and Miller at this stage seem much stronger, though Carrier's work may seem stronger only because he addresses so many arguments that were of little worth to begin with."
We have the following reasons to consider it Unlikely that Luke 2:2 refers to a Historical first of two significant leadership positions of Quirinius related to Syria:
1) The Likely understanding of Luke 2:2 is that "Luke" is referring to Quirinius' Governorship. Why would "Luke" refer to other than the top leader of Syria without qualifying? There is no record of any Roman Governing the same Province twice.
2) We have some descriptions of Quirinius' career including his obituary by Tacitus and there is no evidence from them of two positions of leadership in Syria.
3) Holding here ignores the problem of "Luke's" reference to the Census. We have no good reason to believe that Quirinius would have been involved in a Census of Judea while Herod the Great was King.
4) You still have the problem that Quintilius Varus was governor of Syria from 6 B.C. to beyond Herod's death in 3 B.C.
5) In his related detail analysis in Birth of The Messiah, Raymond Brown says to the effect that if it wasn't for the apparent contradiction no one would consider if Quirinius was Governor/a Leader of Syria twice.
--JoeWallack 14:56, 6 Aug 2006 (CDT)
The second Defense offered is that instead of "first" in 2:2 the word translation should be "before". The Apologist meaning than would be a reference to a census Before Quirinius was Governor. Let's look at the English and Greek:
This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria. (ASV)
http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Luke&chapter=2&verse=2
???? ???????? ????? ??????? ????????????? ??? ?????? ????????
This census was (the) first while is governing (the) Syria Quirinius
Let's import Richard Carrier's related discussion of why "?????" (first) is not only Unlikely to mean "before" here but can not mean "before" here under the applicable Greek grammar rules:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Word
"But even if one wanted to render it differently, the basic rules of Greek ensure that there is absolutely no way this can mean "before" Quirinius in this construction. What is usually argued is that prôtê can sometimes mean "before," even though it is actually the superlative of "before" (proteros), just as "most" is the superlative of "more." Of course, if "before" were really meant, Luke would have used the correct adjective (in this case, proterê), as Sherwin-White implies, since we have no precedent in Luke for such a diversion of style. But there is a deeper issue involved. The word prôtê can only be rendered as "before" in English when "first" would have the same meaning--in other words, the context must require such a meaning. For in reality the word never really means "before" in Greek. It always means "first," but sometimes in English (just as in Greek) the words "first" and "before" are interchangeable, when "before" means the same thing as "first." For example, "in the first books" can mean the same thing as "in the earlier books" (Aristotle, Physics 263.a.11). Likewise, "the earth came first in relation to the sea" can mean the same thing as "the earth came before the sea" (Heraclitus 31).[10.3]
Nevertheless, what is usually offered in support of a "reinterpretation" of the word is the fact that when prôtos can be rendered "before" it is followed by a noun in the genitive (the genitive of comparison), and in this passage the entire clause hêgemoneuontos tês Syrias Kyrêniou is in the genitive. But this does not work grammatically. The word hêgemoneuontos is not a noun, but a present participle (e.g. "jogging," "saying," "filing," hence "ruling") in the genitive case with a subject (Kyrêniou) also in the genitive. Whenever we see that we know that it is something called a "genitive absolute" construction, and thus it does not make sense to regard it as a genitive connected to the "census" clause. In fact, that is ruled out immediately by the fact that the verb (egeneto) stands between the census clause and the ruling clause--in order for the ruling clause to be in comparison with the census clause, it would have to immediately follow the adjective "first," but since it doesn't, but the entire clause is distinct from the rest of the sentence, it can only be an absolute construction. A genitive absolute does have many possible renderings, e.g. it can mean "while" or "although" or "after" or "because" or "since," but none allow the desired reinterpretation here.[10.4]
John 1:15 (and 1:30) is a case in point: the verb emprosthen is already used (the first "before" found in English translations of the verse) in order to establish the context, and then comes hoti prôton mou ên, "because he was first [in relation] to me." So here we have an example of when prôtos means "before," yet all the grammatical requirements are met for such a meaning, which are not met in Luke 2.2: the genitive here is not a participle with subject, but a lone pronoun (thus in the genitive of comparison); the genitive follows immediately after the adjective; and the previous use of emprosthen establishes the required context. Thus, this is clearly not the same construction as appears in Luke 2.2. Another example is the use of this construction in Acts 16:12, where again the sentence can be rendered "first in relation to" and only then can it be simplified in English to "before." No such license is allowable in Luke 2.2. As a genitive absolute the Quirinius clause cannot have any grammatical connection with prôtê, and "first in relation to the reign of Quirinius" would not produce the meaning "before" anyway."
Grammatical Problems:
- 1) The word used by "Luke" is "prôtê". The correct form of "before" here would be "proterê" which "Luke" did not use. There is no other example in "Luke" of either correct or incorrect usage of this Form but "Luke" is considered to have very good grammar.
- 2) The word "prôtê" always has a meaning of "first". Based on Context "before" can be a better meaning since it emphasizes the sequence of the relationship:
1 - Light the match BEFORE turning on the gas.
2 - Light the match FIRST and turn on the gas.
Apologists want a meaning of:
1 - This Census was before Quirinius was Governor of Syria.
With this word order using "first" does not have a logical sequential relationship:
This Census was first and/? Quirinius was Governor of Syria.
- 3) By examples based on Context when prôtos can be rendered "before" it is followed by a noun in the genitive (the genitive of comparison). Let's look at the Verse again:
???? ???????? ????? ??????? ????????????? ??? ?????? ????????
This census was (the) first while is governing (the) Syria Quirinius
The first significant word after ????? is ????????????? which is not a noun but a present participle (incomplete action). Therefore, it is Unlikely that "Luke" intended a "before" meaning here, based on the word order. Apologists want to use the later word which is a Noun, Quirinius, as the noun which "follows" ?????. Once again though, the applicable Greek grammar rules make this not just Unlikely but Impossible. Here we have a Genetive (possessive) Form present participle (is governing) combined with a corresponding Genetive Form subject Noun (Quirinius) which is known as a Genitive Absolute construction. With a genetive absolute construction, in order for the construction, Quirinius is governing, to be part of a sequential comparison, what it's being compared to, in this case "census", needs to follow ????? and not precede it.
Let's go to Holdings article now and look for Possible defense here:
The only part of Holding's article that even comes close to addressing the 3 grammatical problems here is:
"...Pearson has made a plausible case for how to understand the construction in Luke 2.2 as a genitive absolute that is dependent upon the preceding independent clause, marshalling examples from Luke-Acts that show the flexibility of the genitive absolute construction. Further, there are numerous examples of dependent participles being used in the genitive case in predicative constructions, both in the Greek of the New Testament and in extra-Biblical Greek. However, it may be that the analysis of the particular construction is not to be understood as a genitive absolute at all but with the noun, [kuernios], as the genitive of comparison, and with the participle [hêgemoneuontos] attributively modifying this noun. In this case, the construction, though often referred to as a genitive absolute, may more resemble a simple modifying participle, which is found frequently in both extra-biblical and New Testament usage, in all cases."
Keep in mind that Holding is trying to use Porter, who refers to Pearson here, to comment on Carrier. Porter says that Pearson makes a Possible argument that the Genitive absolute of 2:2 can be compared to something on the other side of "?????" in violation of Problem 3 above. First, Porter only describes Pearson's argument as "plausible" which indirectly confesses that it is still Unlikely. Second, Porter/Pearson/Holding Ignore related Problems 1 and 2. Specifically, Pearson supposedly gives examples from "Luke"/Acts. I've already mentioned though that "Luke" has no other example of a Possible use of "before" with this word. So Pearson is Broadening the issue of whether this construction can have Any relationship and not Specifically dealing with the Problem at hand, can it have a relationship of "before".
The second Possibility Pearson gives is that the construction may not be a Genetive absolute. This has all the same problems. Pearson himself uses wording indicating he thinks it's Unlikely. No matter what he thinks, it's Unlikely as the construction is the normal Genetive absolute construction. It still Ignores related problems 1 and 2. Note that for both supposedly Possible defenses here Holding does not show Porter showing Pearson give a single Specific example.
Daniel Wallace, a Conservative Christian bible scholar, has a related article here, The Problem of Luke 2:2, which is representative of mainstream Christian Bible scholarship's Confession that Luke 2:2 should be "first".
A General problem here with translating "before" is it's more Likely that "Luke" intended to give a Definite time reference, "while" Quirinius was Governor of Syria, than an Indefinite one. "before" Quirinius was Governor of Syria.
--JoeWallack 11:17, 11 Aug 2006 (CDT)
The Third defense offered is you start with the First defense, that "Luke" refers to the first time Quirinius held leadership in Syria and Josephus refers to the second time. Next, you argue that the "census" was something less, such as a registration of support for the Emperor.
Here is the most relevant excerpt from Holding:
"Miller also argues that the nature of the census was not what has been thought:
But more accurately, Luke was probably not referring to a taxation census at all--simply a "registration". Registrations were normally associated with (1) taxation (above discussion); (2) military service (Jews were exempt) and (3) special government "ballots". We have conclusive evidence that an empire-wide (in decree, not necessarily execution, of course) registration occurred in the time frame described by Luke! Martin [CKC:89-90] summarizes the literary, archeological, and iconographic evidence for this:
" A sixth reason for placing the nativity of Jesus in 3 or 2 B.C. is the coincidence of this date with the New Testament account that Jesus was born at the time when a Roman census was being conducted: "There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the [Roman] world should be registered" (Luke 2:1). Historians have not been able to find any empire-wide census or registration in the years 7-5 B.C., but there is a reference to such a registration of all the Roman people not long before 5 February 2 B.C. written by Caesar Augustus himself: "While I was administering my thirteenth consulship [2 B.C.] the senate and the equestrian order and the entire Roman people gave me the title Father of my Country" (Res Gestae 35, italics added). This award was given to Augustus on 5 February 2 B.C., therefore the registration of citizen approval must have taken place in 3 B.C. Orosius, in the fifth century, also said that Roman records of his time revealed that a census was indeed held when Augustus was made "the first of men"--an apt description of his award "Father of the Country"--at a time when all the great nations gave an oath of obedience to Augustus (6:22, 7:2). Orosius dated the census to 3 B.C. And besides that, Josephus substantiates that an oath of obedience to Augustus was required in Judea not long before the death of Herod (Antiquities I7:4I-45). This agrees nicely in a chronological sense with what Luke records. But more than that, an inscription found in Paphlagonia (eastern Turkey), also dated to 3 B.C., mentions an "oath sworn by all the people in the land at the altars of Augustus in the temples of Augustus in the various districts." And dovetailing precisely with this inscription, the early (fifth century) Armenian historian, Moses of Khoren, said the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was conducted by Roman agents in Armenia where they set up "the image of Augustus Caesar in every temple.. The similarity of this language is strikingly akin to the wording on the Paphlagonian inscription describing the oath taken in 3 B.C. These indications can allow us to reasonably conclude that the oath (of Josephus, the Paphlagonian inscription, and Orosius) and the census (mentioned by Luke, Orosius, and Moses of Khoren) were one and the same. All of these things happened in 3 B.C."
What this means is that we have very, very clear evidence of an empire-wide registration in the time frame required! (How much more data do you need?!)"
The Key Points of this Defense are as follows:
1) "Luke" refers to the first time Quirinius was some type of leader in Syria.
2) The "census" was actually a registration of support for the Emperor around 2-3 BCE.
3) A registration of support for the Emperor around 2-3 BCE has support from ancient authors.
Here are the Problems with these Points:
1) "Luke" refers to the first time Quirinius was some type of leader in Syria.
This is needed to make Defense 3 Probable but we've already indicated it's Unlikely because:
- 1) The Likely understanding of Luke 2:2 is that "Luke" is referring to Quirinius' Governorship. Why would "Luke" refer to other than the top leader of Syria without qualifying? There is no record of any Roman Governing the same Province twice.
- 2) We have some descriptions of Quirinius' career including his obituary by Tacitus and there is no evidence from them of two positions of leadership in Syria.
- 3) Holding here ignores the problem of "Luke's" reference to the Census. We have no good reason to believe that Quirinius would have been involved in a Census of Judea while Herod the Great was King.
- 4) You still have the problem that Quintilius Varus was governor of Syria from 6 B.C. to beyond Herod's death in 3 B.C.
- 5) In his related detail analysis in Birth of The Messiah, Raymond Brown says to the effect that if it wasn't for the apparent contradiction no one would consider if Quirinius was Governor/a Leader of Syria twice.
2) The "census" was actually a registration of support for the Emperor around 2-3 BCE.
- 1) The Greek word used by "Luke" is never otherwise used for a "registration" of support.
- 2) The Greek word used by "Luke" is what is normally used for a census.
- 3) The registration of support for the Emperor around 2-3 BCE was only for Roman citizens. It's unlikely that Joseph and Mary were Roman citizens.
- 4) "Luke's" detail that Joseph was required to go to his ancestral home fits better with a census than a registration.
- 5) You still have different dates as per Josephus Herod the Great died 4 BCE.
--JoeWallack 10:10, 12 Aug 2006 (CDT)
