Luke & the census by Quirinius (Edited Title)

[Faith1960]

We treat Scipture differently than fundamentalists or sola scriptura adherents. We don’t depend on scripture as necessarily being scientifically correct on all points or necessarily perfectly correct in details such as time and place. Rather we acknowledge that its perfectly correct in conveying God’s will regarding man’s salvation and even then it must be understood by the light of the Holy Spirit, guiding the Church to accurate understanding. IOW ultimately our authority is the Church rather than Scripture. Here’re some salient points from the Catechism:

**107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).**

Read more here: scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm

I just sent you a PM

 

[Ron_Conte]

Scripture is infallible, so when Luke says that Quirinius was governor at the time of the census, that statement must be true. However, Luke also called Pontius Pilate governor, when his title was Procurator. So by “governor”, Luke meant that Quirinius had the role of governing the region, not necessarily the title of governor.

Quirinius was one of two Roman Consuls during the time when (in my view) the census and the birth of Christ occurred. He may have been given authority over that region for the purpose of the census. There is a tombstone called the Lapis Venetus which bears an inscription referring to a census that occurred in year one of the consulship of P.S. Quirinius.

He need not have been governor twice. There is some dispute among Biblical chronologists as to the meaning of a different inscription that mentions a Roman ruler who was twice governor. All do not agree that it refers to Publicus Secundus Quirinius.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is strong evidence that Luke’s statement concerning Quirinius is, or at least could very well be, correct. There have been questions regarding Luke’s accuracy in the past and these have all fallen short.

J. Warner Wallace presents a strong case for the reliability of Luke over Josephus here:

coldcasechristianity.com/2013/unbelievable-is-lukes-description-of-quirinius-historically-inaccurate/

A brief extract from the article:

Interestingly, archaeological discoveries in the nineteenth century seem to confirm Quirinius (or someone with the same name) was also proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC to the death of Herod. Quirinius’s name has been discovered on a coin from this period of time (as cited by John McRay in Archaeology and the New Testament), and on the base of a statue erected in Pisidian Antioch (as cited by Sir William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament). Quirinius may actually have ruled Syria during two separate periods and have taken two separate censuses. This is consistent with Luke’s account. In Luke 2:2, Luke refers to the “first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria” (describing Quirinius’ rule as the governor’s procurator), and in Acts 5:37, Luke describes a second census taken most likely between 6-7AD (as described by Josephus) when Quirinius was the formal governor of the region. Both Josephus and Luke link this second census to an uprising under Judas of Galilee. Only Luke’s sources were present during the actual events; as a result, Luke’s description of two separate censuses is reasonable.

 

[steve53]

But this “controversy” should be kept in historical context.

When Herod the Great reigned, Augustus virtually considered him a co-ruler of the Empire, along Agrippa (when he was alive).

For Augustus to order a census when Herod was in power would be totally out of character for him, and a supreme insult to Herod. It suggested that Augustus did not trust him.

And Herod the Great gave Augustus all the money he wanted anyway, even murdering wealthy citizens if need be.

Augustus had no reason to care about the population in that part of the world when Herod was alive.

When the son of Herod was removed, and Judea and environs were to be turned into provinces and under much tighter and direct Roman control, THEN Augustus needed more information.