Monday, December 23, 2024

James R. Edwards and François Bovon on the Census in Luke 2

  

Can this conundrum be resolved? Most of the related historical data can be accounted for, but the date of the census remains unresolved. Enrollment in one’s place of birth was not stipulated in Roman law, but it is imaginable that Herod may have added such a stipulation in deference to Jewish custom. Regarding extent of the census, there is no evidence of an empire-wide census at any time in Roman history. Regional censuses were enforced at various times and places in the history of the empire, such as the one at the annexation of Judea under Quirinius. How literally Luke intended “entire Roman world” we cannot say, but he uses “whole inhabited world” (Acts 11:28; NIV “entire Roman world”) to refer to a widespread (although not universal) famine, and he may possibly use “entire Roman world” similarly for an “event that covered much of the Roman of the Roman Empire.”16 of the census as the major problem. Lagrange attempts to resolve the issue by translating prōtē (v. 2) as “before” rather than “first,” i.e., “This census took place before the one that took place under Quirinius governor of Syria.” This suggestion attempts to defend the historicity of the account, but it is grammatically offensive. The near-universal denotation of prōtē (and clearly its connotation in v. 2) is “first in sequence” rather than “before” (which would require proteros). Others have argued that Quirinius served twice as governor of Syria, once during Herod’s lifetime and once in a.d. 6, and that v. 2 refers to the first term of service. Roman records indicate that Sentius Saturninus served as governor of Syria from 9 to 6 b.c., Quinctilius Verus from 6 to 4 b.c., unknown governor(s) from 3 b.c. to a.d. 6, and P. Sulpicius Quirinius afterward. The career history of Quirinius is well documented and does not include an earlier governorship of Syria during the unspecified governorship(s) of 3 b.c. to a.d. 6.

 

The conundrum is made more curious by the fact that a reference to “the census” in Acts essentially agrees with Josephus. Recording a speech of Gamaliel I, Luke writes that “Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt” (Acts 5:37). Judas the Galilean, as Josephus informs us (Ant. 18.4–10), founded a militant protest movement in reaction to the census in a.d. 6 under Quirinius. Luke does not mention Quirinius in Acts 5:37, but his reference to the census would appear to recall the census of 2:2 associated with Quirinius. Why Luke twice refers to the same event, the latter in essential correspondence with external historical records and the former at variance from them, remains a mystery. Given available evidence related to the matter, it appears that the reference to Quirinius in Luke 2:2 is a conflation of the census of Quirinius with the death of Herod the Great. The two events were easy to conflate, for the death of Herod and the census of Quirinius were both epic events, and both incited massive protests that were violently suppressed by the Roman army. A full resolution of the historical problems related to the dating of the census of Quirinius seems impossible on the basis of current historical knowledge. (James R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Luke (The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans 2015], 69–71)

 

 

Under Caesar Augustus (vv. 1–5*)

 

1–3* The passage consists of two parts: first, the publication of the edict (vv. 1–2*) and its execution (v. 3*); second, the presentation of the concrete individual case of Mary and Joseph (vv. 4–5*). Is the motif of the census a means of bringing the Galilean family to Bethlehem, a midrash that tells the fulfillment of a prophecy, or an opportunity to point out the juxtaposition of Jesus and Caesar—or is it simply a historical fact?

 

Luke has an affinity for dates, which he inserts while editing. In 3:1* he sets the date of the beginning of John’s work impressively. In 1:5* he places the annunciation to Zechariah “in the days of Herod.” There the perspective remains Jewish and bound to prophecy. Here in 2:1*, in which the fulfillment begins, the horizon broadens to include the οἰκουμένη (“world,” for Luke, the imperium Romanum). Against the backdrop of the imperial command, the angels’ message of the birth of the σωτήρ (“savior”) and κύριος (“lord”) receives its specific relevance. The dating as such alludes to the historicity of salvation, but also has a polemical point: the “political theology” of Augustus, supported particularly in the East by the religious worship of the ruler, is unmasked and invalidated by the christological claim. At the same time, with the reference to the obedience of Mary and Joseph, Luke’s polemic is directed against the Zealot movements. Luke is thus not pitting one political theology against another. The Gospel is a criticism of both the ruler cult and Zealot ideology.

 

Modern readers will easily miss the power claim behind a census in those times, by which a ruler wished to certify the number of his subjects in order to have them better in his grasp for military or financial service. Since David, the Bible is aware of its temptation and danger: the people belong to God, and even the chosen king should refrain from any census in order to depend on the power of God alone. God alone may institute a census (Num 1:26*). Can it have been that Luke knew a messianic interpretation of Ps 87(LXX 86):6* that expected the birth of the Messiah during a universal census? In any case, the objection to any census in Israel had gained force. Did not, for this reason, the accommodation to Roman rule signify a betrayal of the only Lord, the God of Israel? The minds of people had become agitated and drifted apart over this question. According to Josephus, the beginnings of the Zealot movement were inseparably bound to a Roman census.

 

But the ἀπογραφή should be distinguished from the ἀποτίμησις (both translate the Latin census). The ἀπογραφή is the official registration of every inhabitant (age, occupation, wife, children), in order to establish military service and head tax. The ἀποτίμησις, on the other hand, aimed at registration of goods and income. Luke uses ἀπογραφή in the usual sense in vv. 1–5*, and ἀπογράφεσθαι regularly, in the middle voice (“to register oneself”).

 

Secular sources report that at various times Augustus ordered individual provinces to be counted, or his private property (including imperial provinces) to be estimated. A certain regularity (every fourteen years) seems to have prevailed for these censuses, at least in Egypt. But it never became a single, general decree. Luke is mistaken in literal terms, but he does correctly capture the historical tendency of the time, and of the emperor, in narrative and popular terms.

 

In v. 2* should the text critic read αὕτη (“this”) or αὐτή (“it”), with or without the article, πρώτη ἐγένετο (“[this] was the first [registration]”) or ἐγένετο πρώτη (“[this registration] happened first”)? Moreover, should πρώτη be taken comparatively (“an earlier”)? But the translation, “This census took place before that of the governor Quirinius,” is, in any case, apologetic. The traditional solution is probably the correct one: “This was the first registration”; the pronoun αὕτη (“this”) without is the subject and is thus congruent with the predicate nominative. Then ἡγεμονεύοντοςΚυρηνίου (“when Quirinius was governor”) is understood as a genitive absolute.

 

According to Luke’s chronology (cf. 1:5*, 24*, 26*, 39*, 56*, 67*), we are still in the days of Herod, or shortly after his death (4 bce). But according to Josephus, Quirinius appears as a legatus Augusti pro praetore (governor of an imperial province) only in 6 ce; he was assigned to Syria to conduct the census in Syria and Palestine, and to liquidate the property of the recently deposed son of Herod, Archelaus, who had until then ruled over Judea. All possible attempts have been undertaken to harmonize Josephus and Luke. Thus, for example, a fragmentary inscription, the Titulus Tiburtinus, was assigned to Quirinius, who would then have been the governor of Syria twice (not impossible, but unusual). Others have argued that at the end of his life Herod was reproached by Augustus and was for that reason supposed to have demonstrated his loyalty to Roman power by an oath;25 but an oath is no ἀπογραφή (“registration”).

 

Josephus is doubtless poorly informed about the era after Herod. Popular memory could have confused the unrest after Herod’s death with that which followed the removal of Archelaus. On both occasions, great, almost messianic expectations arose; and on both occasions not the divine but the imperial will won out. So Luke is writing of the time shortly after Herod’s death and connecting it with the census under Quirinius after Archelaus. (François Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (trans. Christine M. Thomas; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2002], 83–84)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Blog Archive