Aller au contenu

Utilisateur:Hadrien/RQ

Une page de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre.

du XVI au XVIII° siècle[modifier | modifier le code]

Dans The Credibility of the Gospel History (1727), le théologien anglican Nathaniel Lardner liste et discute les arguments qui ont été avancés jusqu'alors :

En Jean Calvin en 1556 affirme que Josèphe s'est trompé, une idée soutenu par Caesar Baronius, qui suggére Quirinius devait que avoir été gouverneur de Syrie une ou même deux fois auparavant. Une autre idée de Calvin, soutenu par Henri Valois, était que le décret d'Auguste avait été édicté vers la fin du règne d'Hérode, mais que le recensement n'avait pas été mis en œuvre avant que Quirinius ne devienne gouverneur vers 6/7. Une autre suggestion de Valois était que l'attribution du recensement à Saturninus était correct ; d'autres suggèrent que le texte devait être lu "Quintilius". En 1702, William Whiston,[1] soutenu par Humphrey Prideaux,[2] fait une proposition similaire à celle de Calvin : que le recensement avait été mis en oeuvre sous Hérode mais que l'impôt n'avait été levé que lorsque que Quirinius avait été nommé gouverneur au bannissement d'Archelaus.

Enfin il y eut des traductions alternatives du texte. L'un proposée par Hans Georg Herwart von Hohenburg en 1612[3] et soutenu par [Johannes Kepler|Kepler]], Daniel Whitby,[4] Perizonius et Leclerc, mais rejetée par Isaac Casaubon,[5] traduit Luc par "Ce recensement eut lieu avant que Quirinius ne fut gouverneur de Syrie". Une autre traduction fut proposée par Théodore de Bèze qui reçu de nombreux soutien à vérifier': "This first enrolment was made, when Cyrenius was governor of Syria", arguing that Quirinius must have carried out the census during Herod's reign, operating as a subordinate or equal of the serving governor.[6]

Lardner rejetta la plupart de ces arguments. Quirinius ne pouvait avoir été gouverneur avant, car on connaissait les noms des gouverneurs pendant le règne d'Hérode : "there is no room for Cyrenius at this time"; les références à d'autres noms ne pouvaient être exactes car tous les manuscrits anciens de l'évangile de Luc, nomme Quirinius, de même que Justin Martyr, qui écrivait avant Tertullien [7], la suggestion d'un délai de 10 ans entre l'édit et le recensement est directement contraire au texte de Luc; et celle d'un délai entre le recensement et l'impôt est contredit par Josèphe qui "is as express in this matter as can be".

Tout en ne rejettant pas absolument la traduction de Herwaert, Lardner ne la trouve "not fully satisfied", jugeant qu'il s'agit "a very uncommon use of the word", qui ne semble pas avoir été compris de cette façon par aucun des premiers auteurs chrétiens comme Justin Martyr Eusèbe de Césarée. Il préfère l'approche de Théodore de Bèze qui au moins est en accord avec l'interprétation traditionnelle, que le recensement a été mis en oeuvre par Quirinius, mais propose un variante due à Joseph Scaliger: "This was the first assessment of Cyrenius, governor of Syria", argumentant que cela se réfère non au titre que Quirinius avait à l'époque, mais à celui pour lequel il serait connu plus tard[8]

Lardner's work was influential - his preferred interpretation was adopted by William Paley in 1803.[9] However, more skeptical views were also beginning to be felt. In his Philosophical Dictionary (1765), Voltaire quotes the views of Dumarsais on the passage in Luke: "how many decided falsehoods are contained in these few words".[10]

19th century[modifier | modifier le code]

Some variants of the arguments Lardner had discussed continued to be put forward in the early 19th century. Hug, in 1808, argued that Quirinius had carried out the census while Saturninus was governor. Paulus and William Hales[11] supported the idea that the census was initiated by Augustus under Herod, but not carried into effect until 6. Tholuck, along with Storr and Friedrich Süskind, repeated Herwaert's translation, implying a census under Herod before Quirinius. Winer, however, described that translation as "not merely ambiguous, but awkward and ungrammatical", and suggested that the original name in the text was Quintilius.[12]

In his groundbreaking 1839 book, Das Leben Jesu, the scholar David Friedrich Strauss rejected all of these arguments, affirming that Luke's account was a fiction ("we have before us two equally unhistorical narratives … composed … quite independently of each other"[13]) intended to show the birth of Jesus as a fulfilment of prophecy: "The Evangelist ... knew perfectly well what [Mary] had to do [in Bethlehem]; namely, to fulfil the prophecy of Micah, by giving birth, in the city of David, to the Messiah".[14] A similar approach was adopted by the French scholar Ernest Renan in his bestselling 1863 book, The Life of Jesus: "Jesus", he asserted firmly, "was born at Nazareth".[15]

More traditional scholars continued to propose ways of reconciling the Luke account with that of Josephus. Huschke[16] in 1840 and Wieseler in 1843[17] supported the Herwaert translation. But in an influential study published in Latin in 1854[18] and in an expanded version in German in 1869,[19] August Wilhelm Zumpt proposed a new approach: he revived the theory of Baronius, that Quirinius had previously been governor of Syria, but placed this after the death of Herod, in 3 BC. This still conflicted with the account in the Gospel of Matthew, which clearly indicates the birth of Jesus before the death of Herod; Zumpt suggested that the census might have been initiated towards the end of Herod's reign, and only completed when Quirinius was governor, and therefore known by that name.

Zumpt's theory received widespread support,[20] especially when supported by the historian Theodor Mommsen, who interpreted the Tiburtine Inscription, a Roman inscription discovered in 1746, as referring to someone who had twice been legate (governor) of Syria, and speculated that this might refer to Quirinius.[21] For some time, this became the mainstream position among biblical scholars. In 1896 the Scottish archaeologist Sir William Ramsay developed this theory further, although he argued that Quirinius had been governor as far back as 10 BC, alongside Saturninus.[22]

In 1886, however, the theologian Emil Schürer, in his monumental study, Geschichte des judischen Volks im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ), closely criticised the traditional view. He raised five points which showed, he believed, that the Luke account could not be historically accurate: (1) nothing is known in history of a general census by Augustus; (2) in a Roman census Joseph would not have had to travel to Bethlehem, and Mary would not have had to travel at all; (3) no Roman census would have been made in Judea during the reign of Herod; (4) Josephus records no such census, and it would have been a notable innovation; (5) Quirinius was not governor of Syria until long after the reign of Herod.[23]

20th century[modifier | modifier le code]

In 1931 Groag questioned the interpretation that had been placed on the Tiburtine inscription, pointing out that the stone merely refers to someone who held a legateship for the second time in the province of Syria, but does not specify that the earlier legateship was also in Syria.[24] Ronald Syme, stating that "there is no reason for believing that [Quirinius] was twice governor of Syria,"[25] suggested that man referenced in the inscription was more likely to be L. Calpurnius Piso. Groag argued that it referenced M. Plautius Silvanus.[26]

An important element in the theory that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria was the belief that he had conducted the Homonadensian war from Syria, and that this war took place between 3 and 2 BC.[27] But Syme argued in 1934 that the campaign might be better dated to 6 BC, and that Quirinius conducted it as governor of Galatia, rather than as governor of Syria,[28] a view supported by most modern scholars.[29] They hold this position, in part, for reasons of historical precedent. As J.G.C. Anderson observed, "A second tenure of Syria or indeed any other consular province under one and the same emperor by a senator who was not a member of the imperial house [i.e., Quirinius] is unparalleled."[30]

There were still some who defended a previous term of government by Quirinius. Thomas Corbishley argued in 1934 that there was room for Quirinius as governor around 10 BC.[31] Ethelbert Stauffer, in 1960, suggested that Quirinius had operated as a ‘Generalissimo of the East’ from 12 BC,[32] neither have been supported. Instead, most attempts to reconcile Luke with Josephus focused on the alternative translations in the tradition of Herwaert. F.M. Heichelheim, in 1938, argued that the "original meaning" of the text was properly rendered as "This census was the first before that under the prefectureship of Quirinius in Syria".[33] This position has been followed by several other scholars.[34] Heichelheim's proposed translation was rejected by Horst Braunert, who argued that the reference in « Acts 5:37 » to "the census", implied that Luke knew only of one,[35] and that ancient sources clearly understood the phrase in question to mean "the first census." The proposed translation has been described by others as "implausible" (A. N. Sherwin-White),[36] "almost impossible" (Daniel B. Wallace),[37] and "obviously a last-ditch solution to save the historicity involved" (Joseph Fitzmyer).[38] None of the seven most popular English translations of the New Testament accepts the alternative interpretation.[39]

Many of the suggestions put forward involve a census carried out under Herod, on Roman orders. Palestine was a client kingdom which paid tribute to the Romans,[40] and Herod raised the money through taxation of his subjects.[41] The people of Herod's kingdom were not directly taxed by the empire; thus a census and taxation during Herod's rule, if ordered and administered by an imperial official, would be unprecedented. Ramsay argues that Luke does not claim the census was conducted by a Roman official.[42] B. W. R. Pearson suggested that such a census could have been carried out under Herod[43] Citing historian E. T. Salmon, he observed that client kingdoms "possessed no more than interim status"[44] and argued that such a census is plausible,[45] citing the Roman-type census ordered by King Archelaus of Cappadocia, of the tribe of Clitae in Cilicia Tracheia.[46] Like the census in Iudea, the attempted census by Archelaos was forcefully resisted by the Clitae.[47] Schürer argued that an earlier enrollment in Iudea would have evoked the same response, and that this would have been noted by Josephus.[48]

A few authors have suggested that the Gospel of Luke correctly refers to the census of 6, and that the account in the Gospel of Matthew is wrong,[49][50]

The majority view among modern scholars is that there was only one census, in 6, and the author of the Gospel of Luke deviated from history in connecting it with the birth of Jesus.[51][52][53] In The Birth of the Messiah (1977), a detailed study of the infancy narratives of Jesus, the American scholar Raymond E. Brown concluded that "this information is dubious on almost every score, despite the elaborate attempts by scholars to defend Lucan accuracy."[54] W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders ascribe this to simple error: “on many points, especially about Jesus’ early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know, and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could”.[55] Fergus Millar, on the other hand, suggests that Luke's narrative was a construct designed to connect Jesus with the house of David.[56]

21st century[modifier | modifier le code]

In 2006, Richard Carrier published the 5th edition of his 1999 The Date of the Nativity in Luke essay In that work he goes over all the attempts to reconcile Luke and Matthew as well as the internal problems Luke has if one assumes that the Herod mentioned in Luke is indeed Herod the Great.

Carrier points out that Sentius Saturninus was governor of Syria from 9 to 6 BC and was succeeded by Quintilius Varus who held the position at least until Herod's death. He also points out "we do not even have any evidence that anyone ever served as governor of the same consular province twice in the whole of Roman history, so it would have been extremely unusual and quite remarkable--so much so that it would be odd that no one mentions it, not even Josephus, or Tacitus who gives us the obituary of Quirinius in Annals 3.48, a prime place to mention such a peculiar accomplishment."

Citing Mark Smith, "Of Jesus and Quirinius", The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 62:2 (April, 2000): pp. 278–93 Carrier says that the Herod the King reference in Luke 1:5 could refer to Herod's successor Archelaus (who only called himself "Herod" on his coins) as "even Josephus, who otherwise refers to Archelaus as ethnarch, could still call him a king (Antiquities of the Jews 18.93)" and that "at the only place in the New Testament where the name "Archelaus" is used (Matthew 2:22), he is said to have basileuei, "reigned," a term that does not entail but nevertheless implies a status of king (basileus), in contrast to other verbs of governing that could have been chosen."

Based on all the evidence Carrier gathered he concluded that "if one of the two authors must be correct, then Matthew is far more likely the one who has it wrong."


  1. ↑ William Whiston, Short Chronology of the Old Testament, and of the Harmony of the Four Evangelists, London, 1702
  2. ↑ Humphrey Prideaux, The Old and New History Connected, 1715-17
  3. ↑ Johann Georg Herwart, Nova et Vera Chronologia, Munich 1612, p.189
  4. ↑ Daniel Whitby, A Commentary on the Gospels and Epistles, 1703
  5. ↑ Nathaniel Lardner, "Objections against Luke ii, 1, 2 Considered", The Credibility of the Gospel History, (1729), page 317.
  6. ↑ Archbishop Ussher made a similar proposal in his The Annals of the World, The Sixth Age, 1658; he states that Quirinius carried out the census as proconsul of Cilicia while Saturninus was governor of Syria; another who advanced this idea was Francis Junius (Francis Junius "the elder", whose Notes and Annotations, together with those of Theodore Beza were adopted for the King James Bible) commented, with reference to the respective roles of Saturninus and of Cyrenius in carrying out the census: "C. Sentius Saturninus, a consular, held this census of the whole empire as principal augur, because Augustus determined to impart the sanction of religion to his institution. The agent through whom Saturninus carried out the census in Judæa was the governor Cyrenius, according to Luke, chap. ii." Philip Schaff et al. ANF03/Tert./Five Books Against Marcion/Book IV/Ch. XIX/Note 23
  7. ↑ Justin Martyr, première apologie, Ch. XXXIV
  8. ↑ Nathaniel Lardner, The Credibility of the Gospel History, (1729), page 333; Friedrich Spanheim made the same suggestion in his Ecclesiastical annals (1631-39), Translated by George Wright (1829), p191:"St. Luke calls him governor by anticipation."
  9. ↑ William Paley, Evidences of Christianity, 1803 (pp229-30)
  10. ↑ César Chesneau Dumarsais, Analyse de la religion chrétienne, cited in Voltaire, "Contradictions", Dictionnaire philosophique (1765), although he ascribes it to Saint-Évremond.
  11. ↑ John Kitto, ed., A cyclopædia of biblical literature,
  12. ↑ Georg Benedikt Winer, A Grammar of the New Testament Diction, Translated by Edward Masson, T. & T. Clark (1860), page 259; Strauss, Leben Jesu.
  13. ↑ Strauss, p. 176
  14. ↑ Strauss page 149
  15. ↑ Ernest Renan, The Life of Jesus, Chapter Two (English translation, originall published 1863: republished Book Tree, 2007, page 36.)
  16. ↑ Philipp Eduard Huschke, Über den Zensus zur Zeit der Geburt Jesu Christi (Berlin 1840)
  17. ↑ chronolog. Synopse der vier Evangelien. Hamburg. 1843.
  18. ↑ De Syria Romanorum provincia ab Caesare Augusto ad T. Vespasianum, in Comment. Epigraph., Berol. 1854, vol. ii. 88-125
  19. ↑ Das Geburtsjahr Christi, Leipzig, 1869
  20. ↑ eg edelsheim, schaff
  21. ↑ T. Mommsen, introductory remarks to his edition of Res Gestae (Berlin, 1883, second edition), pp. 161-78. Published as ILS 918 = (en) Victor Ehrenberg, A. H. M. Jones, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, Cambridge, 2nd edition, reprinted with addenda, (ISBN 0-19-814819-4), no. 199) Translated in (en) David C. Braund, Augustus to Nero: A Sourcebook on Roman History: 31 B.C.E.-C.E. 68, Totowa, New Jersey, Barnes and Noble, (ISBN 0-389-20536-2), no. 362
  22. ↑ Ian Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1978, page 103.
  23. ↑ Schurer
  24. ↑ Groag, "Prosopographische Beiträge," Jahreshefte des österreichischen archäologischen Instituts in Wien 21-22 (1924), pp. 448ff; this position is summarized in (en) A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, Oxford, Oxford University Press, , 163–164 p. (ISBN 0-19-825153-X)
  25. ↑ R. Syme, "Galatia and Pamphylia under Augustus," Klio: Beiträge zur alten Geschichte 9 (1934), p. 133.
  26. ↑ (en) Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution, Oxford, corrected, (1re éd. 1939), 398–399 p. (ISBN 0-19-881001-6)
  27. ↑ J.G.C. Anderson, "The Position Held by Quirinius for the Homanadensian War" in The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. X: The Augustan Empire (44 B.C.E. - C.E. 70), ed. S.A. Cook, F.E. Adcock, M.P. Charlesworth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1934, repr. with corrections 1989), pp. 877-8
  28. ↑ R. Syme, "Galatia and Pamphylia under Augustus: The Governorship of Piso, Quirinius and Silvanus," Klio: Beitraege zur Alten Geschichte, 27 (1934), pp. 122ff)
  29. ↑ Cf. B. Levick, "Greece and Asia Minor from 43 B.C. to A.D. 69," in The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 10, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1996), p. 650; idem, Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor (Oxford, 1967), pp. 203-14; R. Syme, "The Titulus Tiburtinus," repr. in Roman Papers, ed. A. Birley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979-), vol. 3, pp. 869-884; and Anderson, "The Position Held by Quirinius," as cited above
  30. ↑ J.G.C. Anderson, "The Position Held by Quirinius for the Homanadensian War' in The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. X: The Augustan Empire (44 B.C.E. - C.E. 70), ed. S.A. Cook, F.E. Adcock, M.P. Charlesworth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1934, repr. with corrections 1989), pp. 877-8.
  31. ↑ T Corbishley, Journal of Roman Studies 24 (1934), 43-49; but see Ronald Syme, Anatolica: Studies in Strabo, Oxford University Press (1995) p260; also Ian Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke Eerdmans (1978), p.103.
  32. ↑ ?Hoehner
  33. ↑ F.M. Heichelheim, "Roman Syria," in An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, ed. T. Frank (Baltimore, 1938), pp. 161; F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans) p. 192
  34. ↑ Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, pp. 23-24; Harold Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), p. 21; L. H. Feldman in W. Brindle, "The Census and Quirinius: Luke 2:2" in JETS 27 (1984), pp. 48-49; P. W. Barnett, ‘Apographē and apographesthai in Luke 2:1-5’, Expository Times 85 (1973-1974), 337-380; Ben Witherington III, What Have They Done With Jesus? (San Francisco: Harper, 2006), p. 101.
  35. ↑ H. Braunert, "Der römische Provinzialzensus und der Schätzungsbericht des Lukas-Evangeliums," Historia: Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte 6 (1957), p.212
  36. ↑ Sherwin-White, p. 171, n. 1.
  37. ↑ Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Zondervan (1996), page 304
  38. ↑ Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (Anchor Bible), page 401
  39. ↑ Michael R. Molnar, The Star of Bethlehem: The Legacy of the Magi, Rutgers University Press (1999), page 60.
  40. ↑ Emil Schürer, A History of the Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1890) vol 1, ii. p. 122; Michael Grant, Herod the Great (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1971) p. 171; cf. Josephus, Jewish War 1.14.14
  41. ↑ Michael Grant, Herod the Great (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1971) p. 171
  42. ↑ William Mitchell Ramsay, Was Christ born in Bethlehem? 1891, chapter 5
  43. ↑ see F. M. Heichelheim, ‘Roman Syria’, in An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome (6 vols; ed. T. Frank; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1933-1940), vol. 4, pp. 160-162; cf. Brook W. R. Pearson, "The Lucan censuses, revisited" in Catholic Biblical Quarterly (April 1999), p. 266.
  44. ↑ E. T. Salmon, A History of the Roman World from 30 B.C.E. to C.E. 138 (Methuen’s History of the Greek & Roman World 6’ 6th ed.; London: Methuen, 1986), p. 104-105.
  45. ↑ Brook W. R. Pearson, "The Lucan censuses, revisited" in Catholic Biblical Quarterly (April 1999), p. 272.
  46. ↑ Lily Ross Taylor, "Quirinius and the Census of Judaea", in American Journal of Philology 54 (1933), 120-133, p. 131. Our source for the taxation of the Cietae is Tacitus, Annales 6.41
  47. ↑ Erreur de référence : Balise <ref> incorrecte : aucun texte n’a été fourni pour les références nommées Fergus Millar 2006 page 238
  48. ↑ Schürer, pp. 418-419
  49. ↑ J. Duncan M. Derrett, "Further Light on the Narratives of the Nativity," Novum Testamentum 17.2 (April, 1975), pp. 81-108; Mark Smith, "Of Jesus and Quirinius", Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62 (2000), pp. 278-293
  50. ↑ Note that this appears to conflict with the reference to Jesus being "about thirty years of age" when he began preaching (« Luke 3:23 »). John Thorley, "The Nativity Census: What Does Luke Actually Say?" Greece & Rome vol. 26 no. 1 (April 1979) p. 81 and n. 1; R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday), p. 548. On the other hand, if Herodian scholar Nikos Kokkinos is correct that Herod Antipas did not marry Herodias until 34, then the beginning of Jesus' ministry would have to be pushed forward to the year 35 and Luke's approximate age for Jesus at that time would be correct. Nikos Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty (Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 266-69
  51. ↑ James Dunn remarks: “It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Luke was mistaken”.James Douglas Grant Dunn, Jesus Remembered, (Eerdmans, 2003) p344. Similarly, Erich S. Gruen, 'The expansion of the empire under Augustus', in The Cambridge ancient history Volume 10, p157
  52. ↑ Geza Vermes comments, "from whatever angle one looks at it, the census referred to by Luke conflicts with historical reality".Geza Vermes, The Nativity, Penguin 2006, p.96
  53. ↑ J. P. Meier considered "attempts to reconcile Luke 2:1 with the facts of ancient history... hopelessly contrived": Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Doubleday, 1991, v. 1, p. 213; see also A. N. Sherwin-White, who concluded that "[t]he attempt to defend Luke" by postulating a census of Quirinius before AD 6 "was misconceived", and that Luke, in bringing together John's nativity under Herod and Jesus' under Quirinius, accepted [an] incompatible synchronism". Sherwin-White, pp. 166, 167
  54. ↑ Raymond E. Brown The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke, Anchor Bible; Updated edition (1999), page 413.
  55. ↑ W.D Davies and E. P. Sanders, 'Jesus from the Jewish point of view', in The Cambridge History of Judaism ed William Horbury, vol 3: the Early Roman Period, 1984.
  56. ↑ "Only Matthew and Luke take the story back to the birth of Jesus, and do so in wholly different and incompatible ways. . . Both birth narratives are constructs, one historically plausible [i.e. Matthew], the other wholly impossible [i.e. Luke], and both are designed to reach back to the infancy of Jesus, and to assert his connection to the house of David... and his birth in Bethlehem."Fergus Millar « Reflections on the trials of Jesus » ()
    — « (ibid.) », dans A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History (JSOT Suppl. 100) [eds. P.R. Davies and R.T. White], Sheffield, JSOT Press, p. 355–81     repr. in Fergus Millar, « The Greek World, the Jews, and the East », Rome, the Greek World and the East, University of North Carolina Press, vol. 3,‎ , p. 139–163
Ce document provient de « https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utilisateur:Hadrien/RQ&oldid=72615210 ».