“In Those Days” (Luke 2,1) a Reply to Michael Wolter

“In Those Days” (Luke 2,1) A Reply to Michael Wolter

Jan LAMBRECHT K.U.Leuven

In his recent commentary on the gospel of Luke Michael Wolter maintains that by means of the expression “in those days” in Lk 2,1a the evangelist points back to the immediately preceding 1,80. “In those days” refers to the time that John the Baptist grew up and was in the wilderness till the day of his manifestation. Between the birth of John and that of Jesus there must have been several years. Luke does not inform his readers about the exact time of Jesus’ conception1. In 1998 Wolter had published a study entitled Wann wurde Maria schwanger? Eine vernachlässigte Frage und ihre Bedeutung für das Verständnis von Lk 1–2. The article is republished in 2009 in his collected essays Theologie und Ethos im frühen Christentum2. In this short note we critically examine the thesis of Wolter and what follows from it. As in his approach, the discussion will be strictly synchronical. No use is made of data in Mt 1–2 nor of so-called pre-Lukan sources. We attempt to dis- cern the manner in which Luke connects the persons and facts in Lk 1–2. First the main points of Wolter’s position will be indicated. Then we will endeavor to reconstruct Luke’s view regarding the temporal relations of Elisabeth and Mary, and of John and Jesus.

Michael Wolter In his study Wolter mentions that most earlier as well as more recent commen- tators place the moment of Mary’s conception at 1,38 (Mary’s final response to the angel Gabriel: “Let it be to me according to your word”) or soon after (before Mary’s arrival at the house of Zechariah, 1,40). They easily refer to 1,42c where Elisabeth exclaims: “Blessed is the fruit of your womb”. Wolter carefully exam- ines the expression ö karpòv t±v koilíav in the Old Testament (LXX) and extra-biblical literature. The phrase possesses a wide semantic field; it is polyvalent. It can even be used for the offspring of a man, but also for children already born, and, as a matter of fact, not so often for children not yet born. From 1,42c therefore a decision of whether or not Mary is already pregnant when she meets

1. M. WOLTER, Das Lukasevangelium (HNT, 5), Tübingen, 2008, p. 121: “ên êkeínaiv ta⁄v ™méraiv bezieht sich nicht auf 1,5 zurück, sondern knüpft an 1,80 an und datiert damit das erzählte Geschehen in die Zeit des Heranwachsens des Taüfers”. 2. M. WOLTER, Wann wurde Maria schwanger? Eine vernachlässigte Frage und ihre Bedeutung für das Verständnis von Lk 1–2, in ID., Theologie und Ethos im frühen Christen- tum: Studien zu Jesus, Paulus und Lukas (WUNT, 236), Tübingen, 2009, 336-354.

995104_ETL_2011-4_05_Lambrecht.indd5104_ETL_2011-4_05_Lambrecht.indd 419419 117/02/127/02/12 15:1015:10 420 J. LAMBRECHT

Elisabeth cannot be made. Nor does the perfect eûlogjménov in the same verse provide certainty in this matter3. According to Wolter the introductory clause êgéneto dè ên ta⁄v ™méraiv êkeínaiv of 2,1a does not refer back to “the days of Herod, king of Juda” in 1,5 but to the immediately preceding 1,80. In 1,57-79 Luke narrates the birth of John and adds the Benedictus hymn; in 1,80 he gives a summary of the youth of John and his stay in the wilderness “till the day of his manifestation in Israel”. That 2,1 takes up 1,80 can be shown by means of a comparison with 1 Sam 4,1 (after God’s revelation to Samuel) and 2 Chron 3,24 (after the siege of Jerusa- lem). Twice the same introductory clause refers to the summary just before these verses, not to the narrative preceding the summary. In 2,1-20 Luke deals with the birth of Jesus. This narration is not linked with the three months of the stay of Mary at the house of Zechariah mentioned in 1,56 nor with the five months of Elisabeth’s pregnancy spoken of in 1,24. That the angel Gabriel was sent in the sixth month of that pregnancy (1,26) does not imply that Mary conceived at that date. Only in 2,5 do we learn that Mary “was with child”. The conception thus must have taken place at a date within the lengthy period of years indicated by 1,804. Luke suggests “dass zwischen den Tagen des Herodes, in denen Johannes geboren wurde, und dem Geburtsjahr Jesu ein in Jahren zu bemessender zeitlicher abstand liegt”5.

Critical Remarks a) 1,39-45: The Visitation Taken out of context the phrase “the fruit of the womb” may be semantically polyvalent indeed. Yet, the narrative of the visitation makes it highly probable that Mary is already pregnant. The babe of Elisabeth leaped in her womb when Mary’s greeting was heard (1,40-41 and 44). One spontaneously supposes that John in the womb of Elisabeth respectfully reacts to Jesus present in the womb of Mary. The most likely reading of 1,42 is that by eûlogjménov ö karpòv t±v koilíav sou Elisabeth refers to Jesus already conceived and present. “The mother of the Lord” in 1,43 again suggests a similar understanding. The future in ºti ∂stai teleíwsiv in 1,45 is part of the object clause depending on ™ pisteúsasa: Mary believed at that time that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken by the Angel. At the time of the visitation the words of the angel had most likely become reality. The entire passage appears to postulate Mary’s pregnancy. A confirmation is found in both the Magnificat and the Benedictus. In 1,48-49 Mary magnifies God for the great things the Lord has done for her. In the first part of the Benedictus (1,68-75) Zechariah blesses the Lord God because he has visited his people and redeemed it6. Twice reference is made to what has already

3. Ibid., esp. pp. 337-338.342-344.347-348. See WOLTER, Das Lukasevangelium (n. 1), p. 98. 4. See WOLTER, Wann wurde Maria schwanger? (n. 2), esp. pp. 338.344-348. 5. Ibid., p. 347. 6. WOLTER, Das Lukasevangelium (n. 1), p. 113, comments in a rather strained way on the reference to the past in the aorists of 1,68-69: “Die von Gott ergriffene Heilsinitiative kann, weil sie Gottes Initiative ist, in einer Weise qualifiziert werden, die ihr empirisch wahrnehmbares Resultat bereits inkludiert”.

995104_ETL_2011-4_05_Lambrecht.indd5104_ETL_2011-4_05_Lambrecht.indd 420420 117/02/127/02/12 15:1015:10 “IN THOSE DAYS” (LUKE 2,1) 421

happened to Israel or to Mary, almost certainly through her conception of the Messiah. The twofold sending of Gabriel and his announcements are hardly suf- ficient to explain these impressive thanksgivings. Wolter refers to 1,23-24a: “And when his time of service was ended, he [Zechariah] went to his home. After these days Elisabeth conceived”. No such information is given regarding Mary7. Yet a similar notice cannot be expected as far as Mary is concerned since her conception has been said to be by the agency of the Holy Spirit (see 1,35). It would seem that the absence in verse 38 of a more or less explicit mention of the conception of Jesus in no way negates it.

b) 2,1: “In Those Days” A discussion of the two Old Testament texts brought in by Wolter is unneces- sary, since we have a better parallel in Acts, a text written by Luke himself. The introductory clause of Lk 2,1a is also present in Acts 9,37a. In 9,32-35 the story is told of how Peter brought about the healing of Aeneas at Lydda. In 9,36 we then read by way of a retrospective summary: “Now there was at Joppa a disci- ple named Tabitha, which means Dorcas. She was full of good works and acts of charity”. In 9,37 the clause êgéneto dè ên ta⁄v ™méraiv êkeínaiv follows: “And it happened in those days” that Tabitha fell sick and died. In the whole of Lk-Acts this specific clause is used only twice. As to Acts 9,37 two points must be noted. First, the clause “and it happened in those days” refers back to the story of Aeneas’ healing in 9,32-35, not to the earlier active life of Tabitha summarized in 9,36. Any reader grasps this easily. Second, “in those days” seems to mean “at that time”, which is chronologically close to the time of the healing of Aeneas; it is obviously not a matter of years. It would seem that both points apply also to Lk 2,1. In 1,57-79 we have the story (and hymn); in 1,80 there is the summary of John’s future progress; by means of êgéneto dè ên ta⁄v ™méraiv êkeínaiv (“and it happened in those days”) in 2,1 Luke naturally refers back to the days of John’s birth, not to the years of John’s childhood and youth (nor directly to 1,5 “the days of Herod, king of Judea”)8. The demonstrative êke⁄nov (“that”, not oœtov, “this”9) in the phrase ên ta⁄v ™méraiv êkeínaiv (“in those days”) makes the leaping over 1,80 even more probable10. A similar phenomenon – without the introductory clause but with êgéneto dé – is found in 3,1-22. Verses 18-20 summarize John’s preaching and his future imprisonment by Herod. Neglecting this summary, the evangelist in verse 23 returns to John’s baptizing activity of 3,1-17: “Now when all the people were baptized (êgéneto dè ên t¬ç baptisq±nai †panta tòn laón) and when Jesus also had been baptized …”.

7. See WOLTER, Wann wurde Maria schwanger? (n. 2), pp. 336-337. 8. See J. ERNST, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (RNT), Regensburg, 1977, p. 100: “Mög- licherweise soll über 1,80 hinweg an die Täufererzählung angeknüpft werden”. 9. For the use of oœtov with “days” in Lk 1–2, see 1,24: metà dè taútav tàv ™mérav sunélaben ˆElisábeq, and 1,39: ânast¢sa dè Maríam ên ta⁄v ™méraiv taútaiv. 10. In the fourth beatitude Luke uses ên êkeínjÇ t±Ç ™méraç (6,23) and by this phrase refers to a day in the future: “Rejoice in that day”. For “that day” or “those days” in the gospel, see 5,35; 10,12; 17,31; 21,23; and 21,34.

995104_ETL_2011-4_05_Lambrecht.indd5104_ETL_2011-4_05_Lambrecht.indd 421421 117/02/127/02/12 15:1015:10 422 J. LAMBRECHT

c) Dates for John and Jesus Can we reconstruct Luke’s view as to the respective ages of John and Jesus? Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work (3,23). We may suppose that this beginning was at a date not long after his baptism by John and the vision which Jesus had at that occasion. The day of John’s manifestation to Israel is indicated in 3,1-2 (“In the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius …”). The birth of Jesus (2,7) took place while Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem since they went up from Nazareth to be enrolled in the city of David (2,4). The decree for registration had gone out from Augustus “in those days” (see 2,1), almost certainly those of John’s birth and what happened on the days after it (1,57-79). When Elisabeth was in her sixth month (1,26) Mary who, we assume, had just become pregnant (see 1,38), visited her (1,26) and remained with her about three months (1,56). This seems to indicate a period of about six months between the birth of Jesus and that of John. If the birth of Jesus is to be dated at the end of “the days of Herod, king of Judea” (1,5), the approximate indication in 3,23 (“about thirty years of age”) can still be considered as more or less correct. Jesus would have been about 35 years old at the beginning of his ministry. But what can be made of the census “when Quirinius was governor of Syria”, mentioned in 2,1-2? It is dated by Flavius Josephus in 6 A.D. This notice would put the birth of Jesus at least ten years later. For Wolter, who – as we have seen – connects 2,1 with 1,80, the so-called tension (or impossibility) disappears:

Es nötigt also nicht das Geringste zu der Annahme, dass die lukanische Verknüpfung der Geburt Jesu mit dem Census und dessen Datierung bei Josephus chronologisch miteinander unvereinbar sind11.

d) Which Census? Whether the daring and intricate results of one of the most recent studies on the birth of Jesus will be accepted remains to be seen12. Armand Puig i Tàrrech detects in 2,1-2 a reference to two different censuses which Luke incorrectly has mixed. In 2,2 the evangelist evidently means the provincial census of Quirinius in 6 A.D., but in 2,1 the decree of Augustus still contains an allusion to the census of 8 B.C. meant for all Roman citizens throughout the Empire. Together with this earlier census Puig i Tàrrech moreover postulates for 7/6 B.C. a different type of census ordered by king Herod which affected all adults, men as well women of Judea. While the census under Quirinius mainly intended the valuation of one’s property for taxation and that of Augustus was designed to provide statistics and have an overview of all Roman citizens in the Empire, the Jewish census of Herod, according to Puig i Tàrrech, was a registration with the purpose of updat- ing the annual poll tax that was equal for each person, and of collecting it13.

11. WOLTER, Wann wurde Maria schwanger? (n. 2), p. 347. 12. A. PUIG I TÀRRECH, The Birth of Jesus, in ID., Jesus: An Uncommon Journey. Stud- ies on the Historical Jesus (WUNT, II/288), Tübingen, 2010, 63-104. This study builds on hypotheses and speculations but the author’s well informed reasoning is impeccable. 13. Quirinius’ census defined the tributum soli (more Romano), the census of Herod indicated the tributum capitis (more iudaico). See ibid., e.g. pp. 87-89.

995104_ETL_2011-4_05_Lambrecht.indd5104_ETL_2011-4_05_Lambrecht.indd 422422 117/02/127/02/12 15:1015:10 “IN THOSE DAYS” (LUKE 2,1) 423

The author further speculates why Joseph, who was of the house and lineage of David, chose Bethlehem, the city of David, to register together with Mary, rather than the place of residence, Nazareth.

… the real reason for his decision can be seen in the anomalous social situation in which he and Mary found themselves – both the subject of gossip in Nazareth. Mary, who was still betrothed to Joseph (without ever having lived under the same roof together) was pregnant (Lk 2,5) … On arriving in Bethlehem, the reaction of Joseph’s relatives cannot have been very positive however, as, according to Lk 2,6-7, Mary gave birth to Jesus in precarious conditions, in a stable on the outskirts of the town where David had been born14.

e) Conclusion It is far from certain that a solution can be found for the enigma of the census under Quirinius mentioned in 2,1-2. Hypotheses and proposals abound. After all, it could have been a Lukan historical inaccuracy. However, all this need not affect the conclusions regarding Wolter’s work. It would seem that almost certainly Luke considers Mary as pregnant from 1,38 onwards. The main and highly likely conclusion of this study is that Luke connects 2,1 not with 1,80 but with the time of John’s birth narrated in 1,57-79. A similar construction is detected in Acts 9,37. Without great difficulty the atten- tive reader can reconstruct Luke’s view regarding the approximate dates referring to both John and Jesus, from their conception up to the beginning of their ministry.

Waversebaan 220 Jan LAMBRECHT 3001 Heverlee (Leuven) Belgium

ABSTRACT. — This note criticizes M. Wolter’s thesis which states that the expression “in those days” of Lk 2,1 refers to 1,80, i.e., to the time that John the Baptist grew up in the wilderness, and that between the birth of John and that of Jesus there must have been several years. A careful reconsideration of 1,39-45 and 2,1 makes it highly likely that Luke connects 2,1 with the days of John’s birth and that Mary, according to Luke, has just become pregnant before her visit of Elisabeth.

14. Ibid., p. 104.

995104_ETL_2011-4_05_Lambrecht.indd5104_ETL_2011-4_05_Lambrecht.indd 423423 117/02/127/02/12 15:1015:10