Luke 2:2: making sense of the date of Jesus' birth
The suggestion made in this note is that in Luke 2:2 we should read "Quintilius" instead of "Quirinius". The evidence is primarily that of Tertullian, and the conclusion is that Luke 2:2 as emended confirms that the evangelist or his source held that Jesus was born not in AD 6, b...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic/Print Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press
2005
|
| In: |
The journal of theological studies
Year: 2005, Volume: N.S.56, Issue: 2, Pages: 489-491 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Bible. Lukasevangelium 2,2
/ Jesus Christ, Birth
/ Dating
|
| IxTheo Classification: | HC New Testament |
| Further subjects: | B
Bible. Lukasevangelium 2,2
B Census |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (doi) |
| Parallel Edition: | Electronic
|
| Summary: | The suggestion made in this note is that in Luke 2:2 we should read "Quintilius" instead of "Quirinius". The evidence is primarily that of Tertullian, and the conclusion is that Luke 2:2 as emended confirms that the evangelist or his source held that Jesus was born not in AD 6, but in 7 or 6 BC, in line with other evidence in Luke himself and in Matthew. Further textual suggestions as to how we could make sense of the census are appended. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0022-5185 |
| Contains: | In: The journal of theological studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1093/jts/fli107 |