Iwantamotto writes:

You would only know that if we had the originals, and we don't.  If everyone all over the globe writes out the alphabet as ABCDEFCOOKIEMONSTER, that doesn't make it accurate.

Jun 1, 2012 -- 12:03PM, Ken wrote:

May 30, 2012 -- 12:07PM, Joe68 wrote:

Sorry for the delay in responding but I had to deal with Beryl.

Re: Matthew and Luke disagree on the events surrounding the birth of Jesus.

Jesus was born near the end of the reign of Herod the Great. Matthew’s Gospel is very specific about this. “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying...” (RSV Matthew 2:1).

Matthew includes the notice of the death of Herod: “But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, ‘Rise,take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child's lifeare dead.’” (Matthew 2:19-20) Luke’s Gospel also places the birth story in the historical contextof Herod the Great. “In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, ofthe division of Abijah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.” (RSV Luke 1:5)

Luke firmly places Jesus' birth during the Judean census conducted by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius when he was governor of Syria. This is reliably dated to 6/7 CE - ten years after the death of Herod. If Luke thought it took place during the reign of Herod, he was a very poor historian. No Roman governor could have conducted a census in Judea while Herod was on the throne.

What verse(s) do you think "firmly places Jesus' birth during the Judean census conducted by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius when he was governor of Syria"?

May 30, 2012 -- 12:07PM, Joe68 wrote:

Sorry for the delay in responding but I had to deal with Beryl.

No problem

May 30, 2012 -- 12:07PM, Joe68 wrote:

Re: Matthew and Luke disagree on the events surrounding the birth of Jesus.

Jesus was born near the end of the reign of Herod the Great. Matthew’s Gospel is very specific about this. “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying...” (RSV Matthew 2:1).

Matthew includes the notice of the death of Herod: “But whenHerod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, ‘Rise,take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child's lifeare dead.’” (Matthew 2:19-20) Luke’s Gospel also places the birth story in the historical contextof Herod the Great. “In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, ofthe division of Abijah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.” (RSV Luke 1:5)

Herod died in late March of 4 B.C. Therefore, Jesus was born before late March of 4 B.C. We are able to date the death of Herod because the historian Josephus’ account of the last days of Herod’s life mentions an eclipse. Modern astronomy can date that event. The eclipse mentioned by Josephus occurred on March 13, 4 B.C. Herod died a week or so later.1 So then, Jesus was born sometime before the death of Herod.

I’m not sure where you get your dates from for MT & LK.

You are making my point for me. Since Matthew mentions Herod's order to kill all male children in Bethlehem under the age of two, we can assume that Jesus was not an infant at that time which would mean he was born in either 5 or 6 BCE. However, Luke 2:1-4 mentions the census of Quirinius. That census took place when Augustus banished Herod Archelaus and made Judea a Roman province which took place in 6 CE, which would be 11 or 12 years after the date in Matthew.

May 30, 2012 -- 12:07PM, Joe68 wrote:

Tpaine writes: Again, Jewish sources disagree with you.

Actually they don’t. Talk to the 70 Jewish scholars who translated the OT into Greek (the LXX)

The Jewish source I cited states:

In Isaiah 7:14 the Hebrew states "hinei ha'almah harah veyoledet ben" "behold (hineih) the young woman (ha - the almah- young woman) is pregnant (harah) and shall give birth (ve-and yoledet-shall give birth) to a son (ben)". The Christians translate this as "behold a virgin shall give birth." They have made two mistakes (probably deliberate) in the one verse. They mistranslate "ha" as "a" instead of "the". They mistranslate "almah" as "virgin", when in fact the Hebrew word for virgin is "betulah". Aside from the fact that if you read the context of that prediction you will see clearly that it is predicting an event that was supposed to happen and be seen by king Achaz who lived 700 years before Jesus! Link 1

The Septuagint mistranslated betulah as almah.

May 30, 2012 -- 12:07PM, Joe68 wrote:

a) There is no biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption.

Actually there is.

b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn't have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30)

Actually he could.

a) There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph's genealogy, not Mary's.

Actually there is.

b) Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn't help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Numbers 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

This is untrue.

c) Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendant of David through his son Solomon (II Samuel 7:14; I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes lineage of David's son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)

This is untrue.

d) Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor

Actually it doesn’t.

So you are saying that the Jewish sources I've quoted here don't understand their own scripture as well as you do?

(1) In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption. There are two problems with this claim:

a) There is no biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption.

b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn't have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30)

To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:

a) There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph's genealogy, not Mary's.

b) Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn't help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Numbers 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

c) Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Samuel 7:14; I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes lineage of David's son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)

d) Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor. Link 2

May 30, 2012 -- 12:07PM, Joe68 wrote:

All of your objections have been addressed in the other thread I linked to in my last post. Do I need to C&P it here?

The Day of the Preparation of the Passover meal would have taken place during the day on Thursday. The Passover meal would have been eaten on Thursday after sundown with was when Friday began according to the Jewish method of time and date keeping. He therefore would have been tried on Friday morning (the day of the Passover and the Day of Preparation for the Sabbath). John 19:14 says "14 Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he [Pilate] said to the Jews, 'Behold, your King!, which would have been on Thursday.

As I said before there are several "preparations" mentioned here: the "preparation" for the Feast of Unleavened Bread; the "preparation" for the Passover meal; the "preparation" for the Passover-bullock; and the "preparation" for the Sabbath which coincided with the feast. Now understanding these preparations is the key to understanding the accuracy and intent of the text. The Passover meal was taken by Jesus and his disciples in the evening, the same time all the other Jews partake of it. However, the feast or the offering of Passover-bullock at the time of Jesus coincided after his crucifixion. Therefore Jesus was crucified after the Passover meal but before the feast of the Passover-Sabbath.

There were two Days of Preparation mentioned. One was the Day of Preparation of the Passover meal which would have been during the day on Thursday as the Passover began on Thursday after sundown which would have been Friday as days begin at sundown in Judaism. Friday, the day of the Passover was also the Day of Preparation for the Sabbath which began at sundown on Friday.  As I pointed out, John specifically wrote

John 19:14 Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he [Pilate] said to the Jews, 'Behold, your King! (NASB)

which would have been on Thursday.

May 30, 2012 -- 12:07PM, Joe68 wrote:

…who bought the Potter's Field…

The word used by Matthew for "bought" is agorazo -- a general term meaning, "to go to market." It means to purchase, but also to redeem. It is a verb that refers to the transaction of business. Note how Luke uses it in opposition to another word:

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell (poleo) his garment, and buy (agorazo) one.

Poleo can mean "sell" but it's primary meaning has to do with trading and bartering. Therefore the translation of "buy" (and "sell") is made according to context.

How does this mean anything with regard to Judas?

First, note the word Luke uses. It is ktaomai, which means to "get, acquire, obtain, possess, provide, purchase." This word has the connotations of ownership that agorazo does not. Matthew says that the priests transacted business for the obtaining of the field, but they did not thereby have possession of the field. The money they used was Judas' and the field was bought in his name; the field was technically and legally his.

Why would the priests buy the exact same field that Judas died in?

Once Judas died in the field, the land became defiled by his corpse. Hence it would become perfectly suited to become a full-time cemetery. In this ancient collectivist society, the gossip would readily get around as to where and how Judas died and it would not be a burden for the decision to be made to purchase the field in Judas' name to turn it into a cemetery. This is where our social factor comes into play. Judas’ money cannot be put in the treasury -- it cannot be made to belong to the temple again -- because it is blood money. The money was profaned and tainted by the way it was used. By ancient thinking, it was ritually unclean -- even today a charity may refuse money if it is gained by ill-gotten means.

Now it follows that when they transacted the business of the field for the temple, to avoid association with ritual uncleanness, the priests most likely would have to have bought it in the name of Judas Iscariot, the one whose money it was. The property and transaction records should have been publicly available and probably consulted by Luke and would reflect that “Judas” bought the field -- or else Luke is indeed aware of what transpired and is using just the right verb to make the point.

Matthew 27:7 states

συμβούλιον δὲ λαβόντες ἠγόρασαν ἐξ αὐτῶν τὸν ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως εἰς ταφὴν τοῖς ξένοις·

And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

Nowhere does it say they bought the field in Judas' name nor does it say Judas hanged himself in that field. Acts 1:18 states

οὗτος μὲν οὖν ἐκτήσατο χωρίον ἐκ μισθοῦ τῆς ἀδικίας, καὶ πρηνὴς γενόμενος ἐλάκησε μέσος, καὶ ἐξεχύθη πάντα τὰ σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ.

Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

Luke says nothing about the priests, the temple, or burying strangers. It says Judas bought the field himself. Both Matthew and Luke wrote between 80-85 CE, 10-15 years after the temple (and any public records kept in it) was destroyed by Roman legions under Titus.

May 30, 2012 -- 12:07PM, Joe68 wrote:

Oldest, most reliable, does not mean original. There are also other reasons to think these verses were scribal additions. The writing style of John 7:53-8:12 is different than that which is found in the rest of the book. It also includes a number of words and phrases that are alien to to the Gospel. The last 12 verses of Mark also have reasons other than comparison to older manuscripts which don't don't contain those verses. The writing style differs from that in the rest of Mark. Verse 9 introduces Mary Magdalene as if she hadn't been mentioned previously although she had been mentioned in preceding verses. There are also a large number of world and phrases that aren't found in the rest of Mark.

Since the manuscripts were distributed early, far and wide there is no way an addition or deletion wouldn’t stand out like a sore thumb. JN 7:53-8:12 is not found in most early manuscripts.  Same with the last 12 verses of Mark. You are simply pointing out that textual critics have done their job to help us ascertain what the original wording was of the NT. If your argument is that since this passage and that passage is not original then we cannot be sure of any of the NT text, then it is fallacious.

One has to look at the reverse of this situation as well. If all of the early manuscripts have the same text, and they are from different regions far apart, then it is reasonable to conclude that this is the original text of the NT since there is no way all of these independent scribes could come up with the same text by chance or collusion.

The various manuscripts were circulated independently for about 50 years until some were combined by various church fathers. The New Testament wasn't canonized until the Synod of Hippo in 393 CE, so what is currently considered apocrypha was also circulated at the same time. Except for the 7 epistles of Paul that experts believe were actually written by Paul, and the Revelation of John, all the books in the New Testament are either pseudepigraphic or anonymous. None of the authors ever met Jesus of heard him speak, so the New Testament s based solely on hearsay. Basing a belief system on what someone said someone said it not the way to get actual facts about the events written about.

May 30, 2012 -- 12:07PM, Joe68 wrote:

Other than the New Testament itself what evidence do we have that it is historically correct? There are events mentioned in the various gospels that are not substantiated by any contemporaneous historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, or Suetonius.

Do you think they recorded every event? Do you think everything they wrote has survived to this day? As I said before there is a difference between not confirming a historical event and controverting a historical event. The latter would be a problem the former is not. And since the NT was not written by any one person then at least some of the events you allude to may be supported by another NT authors.

As I said above not only do we not know who those authors were other than Paul of Tarsus and John of Patmos, but those unknown authors wrote anywhere from 40 to 70 years after the events they wrote about took place. None were actual witnesses to the events they describe. It's probable that a itinerant rabbi named Jesus (Yĕhōšuă/Joshua) actually lived during the first part of the first century CE, preached a message similar to that if Hillel the Elder and was crucified by the Romans because they considered his popularity a threat.

May 30, 2012 -- 12:07PM, Joe68 wrote:

I'll accept the Jewish position about what their scripture says over that of the Christians. After all, it is their holy book.

Seems like a bit of fallacious reasoning here since it is a Christian holy book as well.

The Tanakh and the Old Testament differ in some important ways. Since the Tanakh was the original I'll accept the Jewish sources when it comes to what it says.

Jun 2, 2012 -- 3:12PM, Ken wrote:

Jun 2, 2012 -- 10:23AM, Joe68 wrote:

Jun 1, 2012 -- 12:03PM, Ken wrote:

Luke firmly places Jesus' birth during the Judean census conducted by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius when he was governor of Syria. This is reliably dated to 6/7 CE - ten years after the death of Herod. If Luke thought it took place during the reign of Herod, he was a very poor historian. No Roman governor could have conducted a census in Judea while Herod was on the throne.

What verse(s) do you think "firmly places Jesus' birth during the Judean census conducted by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius when he was governor of Syria"?

Luke 2:1 - 7.

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

The Greek word translated as "enrollment" is the same Greek word invariably used to denote a Roman census.

Only one Quirinius - Publius Sulpicius Quirinius - ever served as governor of Syria, and we know that he began his term in 6 CE. In that same year Herod Archelaus was deposed as ethnarch of Judea, and Judea became a Roman province. The first order of business upon the accession of a new province was to conduct a census because provinces were directly taxed by the Imperial government. This is what Quirinius did. It was the first census taken in Judea because up to that point Judea had been a client kingdom and client kingdoms were not directly taxed.

After looking into this as best I could I see five problems:

          1.   Nothing is known of a general, empire-wide census in the time of Augustus.

          2.   No Roman census would require Joseph to go to Bethlehem.

          3.   There would be no census in Palestine in the time of Herod the Great.

          4.   Josephus knows of no census before the Quirinian census of a.d. 6. In fact, this Quirinian census is described as an innovation that caused a revolt, meaning that no census could have come before a.d. 6.

          5.   Quirinius could not have been governor of a census at the time of Jesus’ birth, since the governors’ records of this period are well known and Quirinius is not mentioned.

Some basic, fixed chronological facts exist. Luke’s census is not the one in a.d. 6, because it is tied to the period before Herod the Great’s death by Matt. 2:1 and Luke 1:5. Luke and Matthew agree in tying the birth to the reign of Herod the Great. Josephus notes an eclipse that occurred before Herod’s death, which allows one to set the date of his passing with some specificity. The only eclipse mentioned by Josephus in this period was in March 4 b.c. Josephus also notes that Passover followed Herod’s death, which puts the latest he could have died at 11 April 4 b.c. Thus, the birth of Jesus and the census must be dated before April 4 b.c.

The date of the Quirinian census mentioned in Josephus is also fixed, since it is dated in the thirty-seventh year after the defeat of Antony at Actium in 31 b.c. Thirty-seven years after 31 b.c. is a.d. 6.

Given the differences in the two dates, two things must be settled for another census to be in view. First, could such a census have occurred under Augustus in the time of Herod the Great, when Joseph and Mary would have to journey to Bethlehem? Second, can such a census be tied to Quirinius?

The possibility of such a census shouldn’t be regarded as difficult for the following reasons (keyed to the objections above):

          1.   Augustus is known to have instituted three censuses in this period. In addition, other censuses of a periodic nature also seem to have been in place at this time.  Other cycles at or near this period existed in Syria, Gaul, and Spain. It is clear that Rome was active in registering the people of its empire, whether they were Roman citizens or others. It is not unlikely that Augustus could have issued such an edict for Palestine. Luke’s description (2:1) that such an edict is empire-wide may simply reflect the ongoing census process of this period.

         2a.   The problem of Joseph returning to Bethlehem may be explainable on the principle that sometimes the Romans allowed a census to be taken on the basis of local customs, which in a Jewish culture would require an ancestral registration.

        2b.   Many reasons can be given for Mary’s presence. First, her presence might be required by the Roman census as part of the assessment. Or, it may be that her very state made her going along more necessary, since Joseph would not want to miss the birth. It is also possible that Joseph and Mary married after the birth announcement to Mary and after the pregnancy became known (suggested by Matt. 1:19–21). Luke 2:5 may well mean “unconsummated”. Thus, Mary might be recently married to Joseph at this time and would naturally be traveling with him. In fact, ancients may not have been so sensitive about a pregnant woman’s “tender state” as modern Westerners are. The journey itself corroborates that the census came before the splitting of Herod’s empire to his three sons, since if the a.d. 6 census were in view, we would have the unlikely scenario of Joseph and Mary traveling from Herod Antipas’s territory (Nazareth) to Archelaus’s territory (Bethlehem) to register. Such a mixing of jurisdictions is unlikely.

          3.   Though Herod the Great’s authority in Judea during his reign was great and extended to his minting coins bearing his image, such authority would not prevent an imperial representative from registering the emperor’s citizens. Such censuses in vassal kingdoms are not unusual in Roman history. For example, in Samaria taxes were reduced by one-quarter at the beginning of Archelaus’s rule—a concession that suggests that Roman tax rolls existed before Samaria became part of a Roman province in an area that had been under Herod’s rule.

          4.   The problem of innovation in Josephus’s description of the a.d. 6 census is significant, if it is true. However, it assumes that the reason for the revolt against that census was simply that Rome was doing something entirely new. It is not clear that this simple explanation is the real one. A previous census patterned after Jewish models most likely produced no reaction and may not have been worthy of Josephus’s attention. In addition, it seems clear that part of the grounds for the revolt in a.d. 6 was Archelaus himself, who was unpopular in the region. Rome wanted to confirm its presence visibly, and his support of a Roman-like census would anger those who opposed Rome. It was the Roman presence in a Roman-like census accepted by a Jewish figurehead that produced rebellion. Such a negative reaction to the a.d. 6 census should not be surprising if Roman authority was emphasized and the Roman model of census-taking was followed. Thus, the innovation may not have been the census as such, but its offensive form that more strongly reflected Roman sovereignty.  In short, a historian’s silence need not mean historical absence, especially when one of the other potential historical witnesses raises other possibilities.

Thus, a census in Herod’s time requiring a journey by Joseph and Mary is a possibility based upon what we know of Roman practice. That no other source mentions such a census is not a significant problem, since many ancient sources refer to events that are not corroborated elsewhere and since Luke is found to be trustworthy in his handling of facts that one can check. Since the details of this census fit into general Roman tax policy, there is no need to question that it could have occurred in the time of Herod.

However, there remains the more difficult issue of Quirinius - the fifth problem above. Solutions for this problem may be categorized under three types: lexical, historical, and interpretive.

 Lexical solutions discuss meanings of certain words and resolve the issue by adopting a less common meaning for these terms. Historical solutions pay attention to the situation of Quirinius in 6 b.c., putting forward the argument either that Quirinius was a governor in this early period (and so was governor of this region twice) or that he held a unique type of authority that could be described as “gubernatorial” in character, if not so in office.

Interpretive solutions argue that it is wrong to see Luke as associating Quirinius with this initial census at all.

         5a.   The argument that Quirinius was governor twice is most forcefully made. It states that Quirinius was governor of Syria from 11/10 b.c. to 8/7 b.c., as well as in the later period, and that he initiated the census in Palestine at a later date (6 b.c.). There is an inscription now called the “Lapis Tiburtinus” that refers to Quirinius. But there are problems with this approach. The positing of a delay in the Palestinian census is minor, but more problematic is that the inscription, which is key to this argument, mentions no specific name, since it is a partial inscription. Thus, the construction of a position based on an anonymous reference makes this position difficult to establish. In addition, the association of a governorship in Syria with the known work of Quirinius in the Homonadensian Wars at this general time is also a problem, though the specific date of this conflict is not known. Still, Quirinius’s locale during the war is normally tied to Galatia, not Syria. As can be seen, the variables of this position make it difficult to hold. It may be right, but we simply do not have all the historical data we need.

        5b.   Was Quirinius a legate between Varus and Gaius Caesar in 4 b.c.–1 b.c., since this is the only governorship gap present in the historical data? The major problem with this view is that this governorship is too late for Luke’s census, since it would follow Herod’s death. In this view, Luke is in error with regard to a census, though a lesser error than is normally thought, since Quirinius did rule in this period. This approach does not absolve Luke of error, though it does introduce another possibility.

         5c.   Might view 5b be made more plausible? Given, as was already defended, that a census under Herod is possible, is it possible that Varus began the census? Could the results and the taxation that came from it have emerged later under Quirinius in that period, so that historically his name was attached to the census? It is clear that such a census would take time and could well have overlapped administrations. This suggestion brings the data together.

        5d.   Another variation of view 5c is one which suggests that Quirinius was not a legate or a governor but simply the chosen administrator of the census, whose term ran from Saturninus to Varus. This census would have been initiated in 6 b.c. This differs from view 5c simply in seeing two governors involved, with Quirinius working as an administrator of the census, whereas view 5c sees Quirinius as a governor in his own right, who became responsible for the census. The possibility of ἡγεμονεύοντος having the loose meaning of “administrator” is possible. The assumption in views 5c and 5d is that a major census takes some time to accomplish and requires special administrative skills and authority to complete. Either of these suggestions is possible, though it is difficult to choose between them, given the lack of specific additional evidence.

         5e.   A lexical solution separates Quirinius from Luke’s census. In this view πρώτη is not to be translated as “first” but “before” (a sense found in John 15:18). Thus, Luke simply says that the census took place before Quirinius’s governorship. The question with the view is whether Luke would use πρώτη in this unusual sense, but it is possible.

So there are varied solutions to the Quirinius problem. No candidate is so superior that it can be regarded as the solution. What one faces is a variety of solutions, any of which could be correct. If one is forced to state a preference, it would seem that the current historical uncertainty regarding the succession of the governorship in Syria is the most likely cause for the lack of clarity in making a choice. The most likely possibilities are (in my view) the beginning of a census in the period of Herod (view 5c) or the solution of Quirinius as an administrator of the census (view 5d). But the lexical suggestion (view 5e) is also possible.

One additional detail is little noted. If πρώτη means “first” (as agree most interpreters), then Luke calls this the “first” census while Quirinius was governor—a remark that could imply knowledge of more censuses under Quirinius. So the one thing Luke may not mean is what scholars who deny historicity argue he means: the later census of a.d. 6. In light of this and the various possibilities, it is clear that the relegation of Luke 2:2 to the category of historical error is premature and erroneous

Jun 6, 2012 -- 12:56PM, Joe68 wrote:

          1.   Augustus is known to have instituted three censuses in this period. In addition, other censuses of a periodic nature also seem to have been in place at this time.  Other cycles at or near this period existed in Syria, Gaul, and Spain. It is clear that Rome was active in registering the people of its empire, whether they were Roman citizens or others. It is not unlikely that Augustus could have issued such an edict for Palestine. Luke’s description (2:1) that such an edict is empire-wide may simply reflect the ongoing census process of this period.

We can eliminate the possibility of a Herodian census right there. Herod's subjects didn't belong to the Roman Empire. They belonged to a client kingdom outside the Empire, and during its entire history Rome never directly taxed the subjects of a client king. It wasn't worth the trouble. If you were going to assume the enormous administrative burden of direct taxation, you might just as well depose the king and annex his kingdom as a province - which is exactly what happened to Judea in 6 CE. The whole advantage of maintaining a client kingdom lay in having a friendly buffer state that took care of its own administration. 

Client kingdoms paid a fixed annual tribute agreed upon by treaty. Under Augustus, the tribute wasn't too onerous, and could often be renegotiated if the king's revenues decreased for some reason, such as a bad harvest. The king was left to his own devices for raising the tribute. Herod seems to have done this quite effectively through sales taxes, levies, fees, and some of the income from his own extensive estates - he was never behind in his tribute. He didn't need to conduct a Roman-style census. Had he done so, this would have been a remarkable innovation that Josephus would surely have mentioned.

In short, there is no way to place a Roman census before 6 CE, when Judea became a Roman province and a census had to be conducted.  It  hardly matters where Quirinius was earlier.

The likeliest explanation for the discrepany between Matthew and Luke is that by the time they wrote their Gospels nobody had a clear idea of when Jesus had been born. All they knew was that he had lived several decades earlier, that he had come from Nazareth, that Judea had been a Roman province at the time of his ministry, and that Pontius Pilate had put him to death. Both Matthew and Luke also faced the problem of how to get him born in Bethlehem in fulfillment of a prophecy. Matthew had Joseph and Mary living in Bethlehem when Jesus was born and moving to Nazareth a few years later. Luke began with them living in Nazareth and then travelling to Bethlehem. The census of 6 CE was the pretext for getting them from Nazareth to Bethlehem. 6 CE wasn't too late a birthdate for Jesus. It would mean a fairly short ministry of a year or two, followed by the crucifixion in 36 CE, Pilate's final year in office.