I’ve recently spent a fair amount of time with Herodian chronology; this has led me back to this verse a few times to try to work out how it fits in. In reviewing a variety of perspectives on this passage, I find 4 interpretations I'd like to evaluate. I should point out that all of the proposed interpretations of this passage are awkward--there's no good way around the fact that the Greek here is an awkward way to say...anything.
--
1. The King James rendering
The rendering of this passage by the King James translators (and most others), is explored by b a in a separate answer. In this sense, Luke is telling us that this was the first registration (implying there was another later) during Quirinius’ tenure.
πρώτη means first and modifies ἀπογραφὴ (registration).
Benefits of this rendering:
- It allows πρῶτος to carry its commonplace meaning of “first”
- πρώτη (genitive feminine singular) modifies a noun, ἀπογραφὴ, that is also genitive feminine singular
Downsides to this rendering:
- It’s an awkward way to say it -- as Stephen Carlson points out,
ἦν would be a better word choice than ἐγένετο in this sentence
(English rendering “was”) if this was the intended meaning. Craig
Evans notes that "most commentators agree that Luke's use of the word
'first' is grammatically awkward." (Luke, New Testament Series, page
43)
- When was the next registration, to which this one was first?
- It’s difficult to reconcile with Acts 5:37, which shows Luke--who
took the trouble to learn people, rulers, and places thoroughly (e.g.
Luke 3:1-2)--knew about the Quirinius census of AD 6, yet puts the
birth of Jesus during (or just after) the lifetime of Herod the Great
(it’s Matthew who explicitly tells us Herod was still alive when
Jesus was born; Luke does not). Even allowing that the Schurer
hypothesis for Herod’s death in 4 BC is off by a few years (my work
on that subject here ), this is a significant chronological
conundrum (there are numerous proposed resolutions, but they do
require a little speculation)
--
2. The “before” rendering
The view suggests that πρῶτος, when followed by the genitive case (as it is here), can be used to mean “before” rather than “first”, such as:
If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated
you. (John 15:18)
Under this interpretation πρώτη means before and refers to the governing of Syria by Quirinius.
From NT Wright:
It depends on the meaning of the word protos, which usually means
'first'. Thus most translations of Luke 2.2 read 'this was the first
[protos] census, when Quirinius was governor of Syria', or something
like that. But in the Greek of the time, as the standard major Greek
lexicons point out, the word protos came sometimes to be used to mean
'before', when followed (as this is) by the genitive case.
A good example is in John 1.15, where John the Baptist says of Jesus
'he was before me', with the Greek being again protos followed by the
genitive of 'me'. I suggest, therefore, that actually the most natural
reading of the verse is: 'This census took place before the time when
Quirinius was governor of Syria.'
This solves an otherwise odd problem: why should Luke say that
Quirinius' census was the first? Which later ones was he thinking of?
(Who Was Jesus pp. 88-89)
Benefits of this rendering:
- The historical context is clean and straightforward--the Quirinius
census was well-known, Luke therefore needs to disambiguate this
lesser-known registration
Downsides to this rendering:
- It’s awkward
- πρώτη is nominative, whereas ἡγεμονεύοντος & Συρίας are genitive. There are
Greek scholars who think it’s acceptable, but if so, it’s certainly
very atypical.
- Similar to the critique by b a, Wayne Brindle (p. 50 here) has
said of this theory: “But their example, John 15:18, uses the neuter
proton (which often has an adverbial meaning), not prötos or proti as
here”. This argument would work better with known Greek examples if Luke used
a neuter, not a feminine, form of πρῶτος
--
3.The compressed sentence rendering
Nigel Turner (a major scholar of ancient Greek and author of the textbook: Grammatical Insights into the New Testament) proposed a different avenue for a “before” rendering by comparison to John 5:36 & 1 Cor. 1:25:
'First census' must be taken in its Hellenistic connotation as the
first of two, and then we must expand the clause a little. 'This
census was before the census which Quirinius, governor of Syria,
made.'...
The phrase is compressed, but it is no more so ungrammatical
than the phrase in John 5:36, 'I have a testimony greater than (scil.,
the testimony of) John,' or the highly compressed 1 Cor. 1:25, 'the
foolishness of God is wiser than (scil., the wisdom of) men.' The
words in parenthesis are absent from the Greek and yet must be
supplied. There is no grammatical reason for not as readily supplying
the necessary words in the sentence of St. Luke. 'This census was
prior to (the census) of Quirinius.' (see here pp. 23-24)
Benefits of this rendering:
- No historical difficulties
- The grammar, though unusual, works
Drawbacks to this rendering:
- It’s awkward
- This is not likely to be intuitively understood by the audience
unless they are assumed to know there was only one census conducted
by Quirinius (of course it’s possible that Theophilus did know this)
--
4. The prominence rendering
Stephen Carlson favors the view that Luke is distinguishing the registration/census at the time of Jesus’ birth from the registration/census of Quirinius, pointing out that the one at the time of Quirinius was more important:
[πρῶτος can mean] being first in prominence or importance. Many
examples...can be found in Luke’s writings, e.g. Luke 15:22 “[my] best
robe”; Luke 13:30 (first vs. last); Acts 17:4 “quite a few prominent
women” (NET); Acts 13:50 “the prominent men in the city”; Luke 19:47
“the prominent leaders of the people” etc.
This...sense gives full
force to the γίνομαι as “become” (experience a change in nature) and
Luke loves using adj. + γίνομαι (e.g. Luke 23:31, Acts 1:19, 9:42,
12:23, 16:27, 19:17, and 26:19 [exx. from BDAG]). Thus, πρώτη ἐγένετο
would mean “became most prominent.”
Using the sense of “most
prominent” in Luke 2:2 αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς
Συρίας Κυρηνίου, we get either, depending on whether ἀπογραφὴ goes
into the subject or the predicate:
This registration became most
prominent when Quirinius was governing Syria.
or
This [decree to
get registered] became the/a most important registration when
Quirinius was governing Syria.
How I would understand Luke 2:2 in
its context?
I think that it is a parenthetical digression to the
effect that, though Joseph’s travel to Bethlehem was occasioned by
Augustus’s decree (i.e. the registration of 8 BC), the most important
registration from Augustus’s policies was the one that took place when
Quirinius was governor (and that led to the revolts in Galilee). Thus
Luke is distinguishing the registration that Joseph obeyed from that
most prominent one in AD 6, not confounding it.
Benefits of this rendering:
- There is no chronological difficulty
Downsides to this rendering:
- It’s awkward
- While grammatically possible, it’s not intuitive -- this looks like a
really good way to confuse a reader
--
My take on the passage
As discussed by Layman here, Luke is a very detail-conscious author:
Luke shows himself familiar with the political situation between Rome
and Judea and Galilee -- more knowledgeable than any of the other
gospel author. He correctly places the birth of John the Baptist "in
the days of Herod, king of Judea." (Luke 1:5). He understands the
rather complex issue of how Herod's kingdom was divided after his
death in 3 BC (Luke 3:1-2). He is careful to distinguish King Herod
from "Herod the Tetrarch," the ruler of Galilee (Luke 3:19; 9:7; Acts
13:1). It seems unlikely, therefore, that Luke made such a big blunder
as to confuse the Quirinius census as having occurred during the reign
of King Herod.
An honest historian cannot rule out the possibility that Luke made a mistake; a humble historian cannot ignore the fact that Luke had access to more data from his own era than we do, suggesting that if we are mistaken or Luke is mistaken, the good doctor is more likely the one who got it right.
If we treat Luke as we would any other ancient historian, then the historical virtue of charity (don’t immediately assume an error when something is unclear) suggests that an author who is very reliable elsewhere should at least initially be given the benefit of the doubt--we should seek for a plausible accurate rendering before prematurely assuming contradiction.
If Luke is correct, I understand the first few verses of chapter 2 to say something like this--I imagine this as Luke (ever the man for details) having a back and forth with his audience to make sure they understand:
Luke: And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be registered.
Audience: Augustus did lots of registrations, which one are you referring to?
Luke: This was the registration before the registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. (You know, the infamous one after Herod Archelaus was deposed)
Luke: And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judæa, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem
Audience: What--why? Rome doesn’t require people to make long journeys for registrations!
Luke: because he was of the house and lineage of David (as you know, Rome likes to keep special tabs on people who might make a claim to be a king as an heir of David).
--
On this latter point, years later Emperor Domitian actually did track down descendants of Joseph (husband of Mary) for this very concern--that they might try to claim right of kingship over the Jews (see Eusebius, HE 3.19 & 3.20).
--
Conclusion
I suggest that the grammar is awkward no matter how we slice it. Since Luke knew how to write excellent Greek (e.g. Luke 1:1-4), the grammatical oddity suggests to me that he’s being concise rather than deliberately vague (how often do you write a short sentence, only to find that it’s interpreted several ways you didn’t intend, all of which could have been prevented by writing a longer, explicit sentence).
This leads me to favor (though not unequivocally accept) option 3 above. Luke is writing, in compressed form, that this was the registration before the registration conducted by Quirinius. This produces the same overall conclusion as option 2, without the same grammatical vulnerabilities.
My literal rendering: This registration took place before (the registration) of the governing of Syria of Quirinius.
My colloquial rendering: This registration was prior to the registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria.
