(avg. read time: 6–11 mins.)
Jesus’s birth and the cited census have some relationship to when Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2)
Josephus, in his Jewish Antiquities 17.355–18.26 (wherein the census is mentioned), notes that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius became governor of Syria when Judea was added to that province after Augustus deposed Herod Archelaus 37 years after his victory at Actium (31 BCE, per Cassius Dio 50.10 and 51.1), which would give us a date of 6 CE. We also see more general confirmation for this date with the larger record of governors in Syria, as Quirinius followed Varus in this office and Varus was in power after Herod’s death. The date thus cannot be moved back significantly.
This is one of the reasons why the opening verses of Luke’s second chapter have presented some of the most intransigent controversy over Luke’s historical reliability.1 By virtually all accounts, the reference to Quirinius seems out of time. Scholars have thus taken multiple approaches to the Quirinius problem, which are predominately represented by the following:2
1) The simplest approach is simply to say that Luke is in error, for one reason or another. Perhaps a source of Luke’s referred to a registration and he confused it with the census of Quirinius. He clearly knows of that census, as he refers to it as “the” census in Acts 5:37, the one in which Judas the Galilean led a rebellion. Or perhaps it was an invention on his part to explain why Jesus was born in Bethlehem if his parents were from Nazareth.
2) A few scholars have offered some variation of the view that Quirinius had two tenures, either as governor of Syria twice, or as acting in charge of two censuses in the same area in two different capacities. This would seem to be the perspective of the text if it is translated as either, “This was the first census when Quirinius was governor of Syria,” or “This first census was when Quirinius became governor of Syria.”
3) Given how long Roman censuses could take to complete, some have thought that the census simply concluded under Quirinius, but was begun much earlier, while Herod was still alive.
4) The error arises from the most common translations of the text. However, Luke probably means that this census was before Quirinius became governor of Syria.
Although I will argue for one of these positions, it is important for the purpose of our analysis to explain why I put this evidence in italics at the start of this series. In the end, whether you think that Luke was simply wrong or that he is using it as a historical marker of something that happened afterwards, this evidence does not help us to approach an answer of when Jesus was born. If Luke was wrong about when Quirinius was governor, that does not mean that he thought Jesus’s date of birth was in the year that we have identified as 6 CE or later. His earlier reference in 1:5 to the reign of King Herod and his later series of references to rulers operating at the time when Jesus was around thirty years old (3:1–2, 23) demonstrate as much. In such a case, the date suggested by this reference would be an outlier that simply does not cohere with the more consistent evidence of Luke’s own account. Likewise, as controversial as the note is that Joseph and Mary had to go back to Bethlehem for this census, it would make the least sense under the scenario that Luke thought this was the census in 6 CE, since there would be no reason for Joseph to move from a client state to a Roman province, as opposed to a different region within the same client kingdom ruled by Herod. If Luke was using Quirinius as a historical marker, the reference is simply too vague and imprecise for our purposes. At best, the statement would suggest that Jesus was born before Quirinius became governor, but such is already clearly and more precisely indicated by other dates in Luke’s account. Whether the reference is an outlier or imprecise, it does not directly contribute to how we answer the larger question.
Excursus on the Quirinius Question
Given that Luke’s other indications of the date are so disparate from this one reference, we can here engage the question of the best translation and explanation of Luke’s text. The least tenable of these solutions is that Quirinius had a double tenure in Syria in which capacity he took two censuses of Judea. There is simply no room to fit an earlier tenure for Quirinius as governor. Sentius Saturninus was governor of Syria 11–7/6 BCE (Josephus, Ant. 16.280, 294), if he succeeded Titius. He was followed by Quintilius Varus, who was governor when Herod died (Ant. 17.89, 221–303; J.W. 2.16–83). At some point after him (it is unclear when exactly his tenure ended), Quirinius became governor and took charge of affairs in Judea upon the deposal of Archelaus. Nor can the Lapis Tiburtinus inscription be ascribed to Quirinius.3
The idea that the census could have simply ended under Quirinius does not have much to recommend it. It simply relies on the possibility that the proposed case could be so. As long as it leaves the translation “first” intact, it also cannot explain how there could have been two censuses in Quirinius’s tenure. Nor can it properly explain why Luke is referencing this census by its endpoint and not by its beginning or earlier point that actually corresponds to the timeframe he is trying to communicate about Jesus’s birth.
That leaves the question of the translation of the Greek sentence: αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου. The vast majority of translations favor translating πρώτη as a superlative adjective “first,” modifying ἀπογραφή, and conveying that it was the first in some sequence. Both words then function as the predicate for the subject αὕτη (“this was the first census”) Some scholars have opted to translate πρώτη here as the comparative “before.”4 Although this is the less common sense of πρώτη, it is by no means unheard of. Generally, it is not unusual for a superlative form to be used in a comparative sense (or the comparative form in a superlative sense), no matter how much it may trip up a first-year Greek student. Specifically, there are some cases in which a superlative form of πρῶτος (including the feminine πρώτη) followed by a genitive, as here, has the comparative sense of “before” (Herodotus, Hist. 2.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Comp. 17; Pseudo-Eratosthenes, Catast. 42; Plutarch, Cat. Min. 18.1; Athenaeus, Deipn. 14.630c; Aelian, Nat. an. 8.12; Manetho the Astrologer, Apot. 1.329–330; 4.404–405; Scholia on Euripides, Hec. 444; PGM no. XIII vv. 543–544; IG XII.5 no. 590 vv. 2–3). There are even a couple other cases of this in the NT in John 1:15, 30; 15:18. Likewise, the adverb πρῶτον, which primarily means “first,” can mean “before” as well (Xenophon, Hell. 5.4.1; Aristotle, Rhet. Alex. 1420b.28; Anth. Pal. 12.206b; Aelian, Var. hist. 5.18; Heraclitus, Nat. F31b).5 By contrast, the comparative form itself, πρότερος, was rare in Luke’s era of Greek.6 It does appear in the NT (John 6:62; 7:50; 9:8; 2 Cor 1:15; Gal 4:13; Eph 4:22; 1 Tim 1:13; Heb 4:6; 7:27; 9:2; 10:32; 1 Pet 1:14), but is nowhere close to the frequency of πρῶτος (169 occurrences in the NT).
Since this is an unusual reading, it is only natural that it features some apparent problems requiring response. Even though πρότερος was rare, it was clearly still in use in the NT era, and if Luke meant this comparative sense in a context where using πρῶτος would be ambiguous, he was perfectly capable of using the former to convey his meaning more clearly. However, such arguments work best with a significant sample from the same author, rather than from, say, the NT in general (although arguments of the latter type can be helpful for identifying Greek trends at the time, as above). Only by this type of argument can we make significant claims of, “If Luke meant X, he would have used word W, instead of word Y, which he has used to mean Z.” As it happens, throughout Luke-Acts there is not one use of πρότερος for any reason. On the other hand, he uses πρῶτος and πρῶτον frequently (outside of this text, see Luke 6:42; 9:59, 61; 10:5; 11:26, 38; 12:1; 13:30; 14:18, 28, 31; 15:22; 16:5; 17:25; 19:16, 47; 20:29; 21:9; Acts 1:1; 3:26; 7:12; 12:10; 13:46, 50; 15:14; 16:12; 17:4; 20:18; 25:2; 26:20, 23; 27:43; 28:7, 17). Potential comparative uses appear in 11:26, 38 (it is at least parallel to the prepositional phrase); 14:28, and 31, although none of them have the same type of construction as 2:2.7
However, these observations do not yet explain why he would use πρῶτος here and when he conveys comparable meanings more clearly with πρίν (Luke 2:26; 22:61; Acts 2:20 [Scripture quote]; 7:2) or πρὀ (Luke 2:21; 11:38; 21:12; 22:15; Acts 5:36; 13:24; 21:38; 23:15). In the former case, the temporal use of this adverb appears exclusively with an aorist infinitive, rather than with the participle, as in 2:2. Likewise, the latter preposition either functions temporally as part of an infinitival clause (Luke 2:21; 22:15; Acts 23:15) or functions as the head of a prepositional phrase with a genitive (Luke 11:38; 21:12; Acts 5:36; 13:24; 21:38). In contrast, the use of πρῶτος here, and in similar aforementioned texts, is combined with an indicative verb, a participle, or (in this case) both. As such, πρῶτος is more grammatically appropriate for the construction of 2:2.
What then of the genitive participle itself (ἡγεμονεύοντος)? Circumstantial participles of this variety most often function temporally, as in the consensus translation type. In fact, the second part of a comparison most often involves a genitive substantive or a verb that is usually in the infinitive. However, genitive participles can also function in a comparative temporal fashion, as in Jer 36:2 (LXX); Sophocles, Ant. 637–638, 701–704 (cf. Homer, Il. 24.490).8 Of course, participles only mark relative time, that is, time relative to the main verb, and here the verb is a simple copular/“to be” verb (ἐγένετο). When the participle is in the present tense form and follows the main verb, it marks something that is contemporaneous or subsequent to the main verb, at least when we are not dealing with a “to be” verb. In those cases, there is a more direct link, wherein the tense of the main verb (here aorist, most frequently used for past reference, as in this case) drives the tense of the participle (here present, otherwise used to signify contemporaneous or continuous action of the participle). Finally, with another temporal indicator here in the form of the πρώτη, we have what we need for a “before” statement with a “to be” verb followed by a participle.
The one aspect that seems to be missing is a like category to compare to. Here, the comparison is the timing of a census and of a governorship. But it is possible that we are dealing with an elliptical statement, in which words are left out that are considered clear enough to infer (“He has a voice like James Earl Jones” vs. “He has a voice like James Earl Jones’s voice”). We see other cases in Matt 5:20; John 5:36; 1 Cor 1:25; and the LXX of Dan 2:39 (cf. Homer, Il. 17.51; Thucydides 1.71.3; 4.92.5; Xenophon, Cyr. 4.3.7).9 Here, what seems to be elided is another participle (τῆς γενομένης) that would complete the statement as referring to a census that happened: “This census happened/was before the one that happened when Quirinius was governor of Syria.”10
It appears that we have here a case of Luke using Quirinius’s census as a temporal marker, but not as one directly linked to Jesus’s birth. It was clearly significant for later in his narrative, where Jesus and the early Christians are contrasted to revolutionaries, including Judas the Galilean and his response to the census (Acts 5:37). It also seems to have been well known, as Luke’s comment here may as much be a clarification for Theophilus and anyone else in his audience as it is a temporal marker. After all, this census further marked a new era for Judea and its relationship to Rome. Finally, the reference to this other census, in addition to the link to Augustus, fits with the political-theological overtones and undertones of Luke’s overall narrative, particularly in the first two chapters.
Summary
While I have presented my argument for an interpretation other than that Luke has committed a significant historical mistake, either interpretation does not ultimately change the fact that this chronological indicator is at least an outlier. Whether one considers the reference to Herod in the previous chapter or the reference to the 15th year of Tiberius in the next chapter, along with the note about Jesus’s age, this imprecise reference to the census of Quirinius is not ultimately helpful for our purposes. At most, this reference to Quirinius can tell us that Jesus’s birth was before 6 CE, but everything else tells us that, as well.
Brown, Birth, 547–56 lays out several issues that scholarship has continued to try to address since then.
For reviews of the problems and provisions of various solutions, see Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 903–9; John Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, WBC 35A (Dallas: Word, 1989), 99–102.
Mahieu, Herod the Great, 305–7. On the possibility that this inscription belongs to Varus, see ibid., 309–10; Martin, “Nativity,” 90.
Hoehner, Chronological Aspects, 21–22; Mahieu, Herod the Great, 449–54; Pearson, “Censuses,” 279–82.
The references here were provided in Greek by Mahieu, Herod the Great, 451–52.
James H. Moulton and Wilbert F. Howard, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., vol. 1: Prolegomena (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1906), 79.
Luke 11:26; 14:28, and 31 are all translated in the Vulgate with the comparative sense.
Once again, I owe these references to Mahieu, Herod the Great, 453.
Ibid., 454.
Ibid., 453.