Luke 2:2

Luke 2:2 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]193
(Αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη, ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου)

Luke 2:2 [Codex Sinaiticus (א or 01) (4th century)]q77f6rc3
Αυτην απογραφην εγενετο πρωτη ηγεμονευοντος της συριας κυρηνιου

Luke 2:2 [Codex Alexandrinus (A02) (5th century)]21rc2
Αυτη η απογραφη πρωτη εγενετο ηγεμονευοντος της συριας κηρυνιου

Luke 2:2 [Codex Vaticanus Gr. 1209 (B03) (4th century)]38bc3
Αυτη απογραφη πρωτη εγενετο ηγεμονευοντος της συριας κυρεινου

Luke 2:2 [Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D05) (5th century)]188v|357
αυτη εγενετο απογραφη πρωτη ηγεμονευοντος της συριας κυρηνιου

Luke 2:2 [Codex Zacynthius (Ξ040) (6th century)]16r
Αυτη η απογραφη πρωτη εγενετο ηγεμονευοντος της συριας κυρινιου

Critical Apparatus :

(1) αυτη η : A, W, Ξ, ℓ1086
(2) αυτη : B, D
(3) αυτην : א

(4) απογραφη πρωτη εγενετο : A, B, W, Ξ, ℓ1086
(5) εγενετο απογραφη πρωτη : D
(6) απογραφην εγενετο πρωτη : א

(7) κυρηνιου : א, D
(8) κηρυνιου : A
(9) κυρινιου : Ξ?, ℓ1086
(10) κυρινου : W
(11) κυρεινου : B



A Textual Commentary On Luke 2:2

(a) But it cannot be denied that a certain passage may be alledged in the Gospel of St. Luke, which is much more difficult difficult to be rescued from censure, because it contradicts not only Josephus, but likewise the Roman historians. St. Luke relates, in the beginning of the second chapter, that Christ was born during the taxation of Judæa, when Quirinius was governor of Syria, when it is Certain from the Roman historians, that Quirinius was at that period in a different country. This is not the place to mention the various conjectures of the commentators, in order to reconcile the passage with historical truth. The most plausible method is to suppose, that instead of the words in the common text αυτη η απογραφη πρωτη εγενετο ηγεμονευοντος της Συρίας Κυρηνιου, or according to the Codex Cantabrigiensis αυτη η απογραφη εγενετο πρωτη ηγεμονευοντος, &c. the author originally wrote αυτη η απογραφη εγενετο πρωτη, προ της ηγεμονευοντος της Συρίας Κυpηνιου, and that the words προ της had been left out by mistake of the early transcribers. The author would then allude to an enrolment of the Jews, which not being accompanied with taxation occasioned no disturbance, and is therefore not recorded by Josephus. This is a critical conjecture, which would be allowed in a profane writer, who possessed the ſame credibility with St. Luke ; and, as it is certain that his Gospel has been less correctly trancribed, than the other parts of the New Testament, there is an additional reason to grant him this indulgence.
(Johann David Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament, volume 1, part 1, 1802, pp. 69-68)

This entry was posted in 03. Κατὰ Λουκᾶν. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.