Luke 2:2

2. It is said ‘that in any case Herod, being a rex socius (for Judaea was not annexed to the Province of Syria till the death of Archelaus, A.D. 6), would have been exempt from such a registration.’ The answer is that (α) the Clitae were obliged to furnish such a census though they were under an independent prince, Archelaus (Tac. Ann. VI. 41; cf. I. 11, regna). (β) That Herod, a mere creature of the Emperor, would have been the last person to resist his wishes (Jos. Antt. XIV. 14. 4; XV. 6. 7; XVI. 9. 3). (γ) That this Census, enforced by Herod, was so distasteful to the Jews that it probably caused the unexplained tumults which occurred at this very period (Jos. Antt. XVII. 2. 4; B. J. I. 33, § 2). This is rendered more probable by the Targum of Jonathan on Habakkuk 3:17, which has, “the Romans shall be rooted out; they shall collect no more tribute (Kesooma = census) from Jerusalem” (Gfrörer, Jahrh. d. Heils, I. 42). That the Emperor could issue such a decree for Palestine shews that the fulfilment of the old Messianic promises was near at hand. The sceptre had departed from Judah; the Lawgiver from between his feet.

As regards both objections, we may say (i) that St Luke, a writer of proved carefulness and accuracy, writing for Gentiles who could at once have detected and exposed an error of this kind is very unlikely (taking the lowest grounds) to have been guilty of such carelessness. (ii) That Justin Martyr, a native of Palestine, writing in the middle of the second century, three times appeals to the census-lists (ἀπογραφαὶ) made by Quirinus when he was first Procurator, bidding the Romans search their own archives as to the fact (Apol. I. 34. 46; Dial. c. Tryph. 78), as also does Tertullian (Adv. Marc. IV. 7. 19). (iii) If St Luke had made a mistake it would certainly have been challenged by such able critics as Celsus and Porphyry;—but they never impugn his statement. On every ground therefore we have reason to trust the statement of St Luke, and in this as in many other instances (see my Life of St Paul, I. 113) what have been treated as his ‘manifest errors’ have turned out to be interesting historic facts which he alone preserves for us. Special monographs on the subject have been written by Zumpt, Huschke, Wieseler, and others. Among many divergences of opinion it is now generally admitted, on grounds of simple history, that a census of some kind or other took place at this time.

πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην. ‘the habitable world,’ i.e. the Roman Empire, the orbis terrarum (Acts 11:28, &c.; Polyb. VI. 50).

2. αὕτη�. ‘This first enrolment took place’ (literally ‘took place as the first’) ‘when Quirinus was governor of Syria.’ We are here met by an apparent error on which whole volumes have been written. Quirinus (or Quirinus, for the form of his name is not absolutely certain) was governor (Praeses, Legatus) of Syria in A.D. 6, ten years after this time, and he then carried out a census which led to the revolt of Judas of Galilee, as St Luke himself was aware (Acts 5:37). Hence it is asserted that St Luke made an error of ten years in the governorship of Quirinus, and the date of the census, which vitiates his historic authority. Two ways of obviating this difficulty may finally be rejected.

(α) One is to render the words ‘took place before (πρώτη) Quirinus was governor.’ The translation is entirely untenable, and is not supported by πρῶτός μου ‘before me’ in John 1:30. And if this were the meaning the remark would be most unnecessary. The worst of all possible ways of avoiding a difficulty, real or imaginary, doctrinal or historical, is the too common method of suggesting some impossible translation or emendation.

(β) Others would render the verb ἐγένετο by ‘took effect:’—this enrolment was begun at this period (B.C. 4 of our vulgar era) by P. Sentius Saturninus, but not completed till the Procuratorship of Quirinus A.D. 6. But this is to give a strained meaning to the verb, as well as to take the ordinal (πρώτη) as though it were an adverb (πρῶτον).

(γ) A third, and more tenable, view is to extend the meaning of ἡγεμονεύοντος ‘was governor’ to imply that Quirinus, though not actually Governor of Syria, yet might be called ἡγεμών, either (i) as one of the twenty taxers or commissioners of Augustus, or (ii) as holding some procuratorial office (as Epitropos or joint Epitropos with Herod; comp. Jos. Antt. XV. 10. 3; B.J. I. 20. 4). It is, however, a strong objection to this solution (i) that the commissioners were ἄριστοι, optimates or nobles, whereas Quirinus was a novus homo: and to (ii) that St Luke is remarkably accurate in his use of titles.

(δ) A fourth view, and one which I still hold to be the right solution, is that first developed by A. W. Zumpt (Das Geburtsjahr Christi, 1870), and never seriously refuted, though often sneered at. It is that Quirinus was twice Governor of Syria, once in B.C. 4 when he began the census (which may have been ordered, as Tertullian says, by Varus, or by P. Sentius Saturninus); and once in A.D. 6 when he carried it to completion. It is certain that in A.U.C. 753 Quirinus conquered the Homonadenses in Cilicia, and was rector to Gaius Caesar. Now it is highly probable that these Homonadenses were at that time under the jurisdiction of the propraetor of the Imperial Province of Syria, an office which must in that case have been held by Quirinus between B.C. 4—B.C. 1. The indolence of Varus and his friendship with Archelaus may have furnished strong reasons for superseding him, and putting the diligent and trustworthy Quirinus in his place. Whichever of these latter views be accepted, one thing is certain, that no error is demonstrable, and that on independent historical grounds, as well as from his own proved accuracy in other instances, we have the strongest reason to admit the probability of St Luke’s reference.

Κυρηνίου. This is the Greek form of the name Quirinus, Orelli ad Tac. Ann. II. 30. B however reads Κυρείνου. All that we know of him is that he was of obscure and provincial origin, and rose to the consulship by activity and military skill, afterwards earning a triumph for his successes in Cilicia. He was harsh, and avaricious, but a loyal soldier; and he was honoured with a public funeral in A.D. 21 (Tac. Ann. II. 30, III. 22, 48; Suet. Tib. 49, &c.).