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, but in 7 or 6 bc, in...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic 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: 56, Issue: 2, Pages: 489-491 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| 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: | 1477-4607 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: The journal of theological studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1093/jts/fli107 |