01.25. Appendix - The Historical Circumstances That Led To Christ’s Birth At Bethlehem

Appendix. The Historical Circumstances That Led To Christ’s Birth At Bethlehem Cyrenius And The Taxing (P. 395.)

[BibleSupport.com Note: Page 395 corresponds with, “Section First: Quotations From The Old Testament In The New, Considered In Respect To The Manner Of Citation”] THE application of the prophecy in Micah 5:2 to the birth of our Lord at Bethlehem, by the Evangelist Matthew, involves in itself no peculiar difficulty; for the prophecy itself is so specific, and was so readily understood and applied by the Jews themselves to the great event it contemplated, that the use made of it in this connexion cannot justly be questioned by any fair interpreter of Scripture. The difficulties which do hang around the subject have sprung up in connexion with the historical circumstances, which are mentioned by the Evangelist Luke, as the more immediate causes that led to the birth of Christ at Bethlehem. These circumstances relate, in the first instance, to the decree issued by Augustus, appointing a general census or enrolment to take place; arid, secondly and more especially, to the incidental notice as to the time when this decree was carried into effect, that it was while Cyrenius was governor, or had the presidency of Syria; αὔτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγενετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου. This latter being the more special difficulty, and one also on which recently some new light has emerged, we shall here give it our first and chief attention.

I. Giving to the words of St. Luke what seems their natural and grammatical rendering, “this first enrolment was made (or, it was first made) when Cyrenius was governor of Syria,” they appear plainly enough to indicate, that at the time the presidency of Syria was in the hands of Cyrenius, and possibly also (though that is not so clear) that the census now under consideration was an earlier as contrasted with a later one. Dismissing, however, for the present, the question, whether reference is made to a second census, we have to face the position which seems involved in the historical statement of the Evangelist, that the particular census, which led to the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem, took place during the time that Cyrenius was governor of Syria. And this, it is alleged, was impossible; for to quote the words of Meyer, “at the time of the birth of Jesus, Q. Sentius Saturninus was president of Syria, and P; Sulpicius Quirinius did not become so till about ten years later;” i.e. ten years after the real period of our Lord’s birth, but only six after the common era, which is four years too late. There can be no doubt that Cyrenius, or Quirinius (as the name ought rather to be writ ten, and as we shall retain it in what follows,) did receive the presidency of Syria at the later period mentioned, and shortly afterwards did conduct a census in Judea. So that, if this were the only presidency of Syria, held by Quirinius, and the only census taken contemporaneously with it, the statement of the Evangelist must be pronounced erroneous.

It certainly would be very strange if such were the case; for, apart altogether from the inspiration of St. Luke, it would indicate a degree of looseness in historical information, which would ill comport with his assertion at the outset, of possessing “perfect understanding of all the matters” he was going to write about; and it would just as little correspond with the remarkable accuracy exhibited in his other historical notices. The most searching results of modern inquiry have not only confirmed the general fidelity of his allusions to political affairs and current events, but have established his correctness even in minute details, and in respect to points on which for a time his testimony lay under a measure of suspicion. The narrative in Acts 27 of St. Paul’s voyage and shipwreck, in which every particular has been subjected to the severest scrutiny, and has thereby become but the more clearly marked with the attributes of truth, is itself a convincing evidence of this. But one or two examples more may be taken, and these more closely connected with the point under discussion. In Acts 18:12, Gallio is called “pro-consul,” (Eng. version, deputy) of Achaia; and Achaia was, indeed, originally a senatorial province; but Tiberius changed it into an imperial one. In that case proprœtor would have been the proper name for the representative of the Roman state. Strabo expressly calls it “a praetorian province;” and not only had great perplexities thence arisen among the learned, but Beza even took the liberty to correct the text, substituting pro-prœtor for pro-consul. But we learn from Suetonius, that the Emperor Claudius restored the province to the Senate; and as this change took place only about five or six years before the time referred to by St. Luke, pro-consul had then become the proper designation. Again, in Acts 13:7-8, Sergius Paulus is called the pro-consul of Cyprus, although Cyprus is known to have been ranked as an imperial province, and might still have been reckoned so by the learned, but for a notice in Dio Cassius, which contains the information, that Augustus restored it to the Senate. “And so,” says Tholuck, who, after Lardner, refers to the passage, “as if purposely to vindicate the Evangelist, the old historian adds, ‘Thus pro-consuls began to be sent into that island, also.’”

Now, it is surely against all probability, that a historian, who has shown in such things the most exact and scrupulous fidelity, and whose reputation for accuracy has been in danger of suffering, not from our possessing too much, but rather from our possessing too little of collateral testimony—it is against all probability, that he should have committed the gross anachronism of connecting Quirinius with Syria, at a period ten years before his presidency actually commenced. It is the less likely in this case, that there should have been such an erroneous antedating of a public event, as there is every reason to suppose that the Evangelist himself was a native of Syria, most probably a citizen of Antioch, and, consequently, must have had every facility for becoming acquainted with the political history of the district. A conviction of the extreme improbability of any error in this direction, has led many persons—among others in the last century Lardner, and in the present Ewald and Greswell—to adopt an unusual translation of the passage in Luke, so as to make it point to a future, not to an existing, presidency of Quirinius. They would render, “And this enrolment was made before that Quir. had the presidency of Syria.” Certainly an unnatural, if even (in the circumstances) an admissible, representation of the meaning; and one that could only be resorted to, if it were otherwise impossible to vindicate the truthfulness of the narrative! But we are saved from this alternative by the recent progress of research in the historical territory, which has again, and in a very singular manner, lent its confirmation to the scrupulous accuracy of the Evangelist. The person who, in this instance, has conducted the investigation, is Augustus W. Zumpt, the author of a very learned work on Roman Antiquities—entitled Commentationes Epigraphicæ ad Antiquitates Romanas pertinentes. In the second volume of this work he has a chapter on Syria as a Roman province from Caesar Augustus to Titus Vespasian, in which he treats of the successive governors of the province, and the leading features of their respective administration. It is an entirely literary, or antiquarian investigation; and simply as connected with the subject of the Syrian presidencies, the passage in Luke 2:2 comes into consideration. The inquiry is conducted with great patience and acuteness; and in so far as it bears on the point before us—for it frequently branches off in other directions—we shall present an outline of the argument.

Taking the words of the Evangelist Luke in their apparent sense, as denoting the contemporaneousness of a presidency of Quirinius over Syria with the event that led to Christ’s birth at Bethlehem, Zumpt conceives that there is the more reason for adhering to that sense of the Evangelist, and ac crediting the testimony it delivers respecting Quirinius, that the Fathers in various connexions deliver a like testimony. Thus Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. i. 5, “Now this was the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus, and the twenty- eighth from the subjugation of Egypt, and the decease of Antony and Cleopatra, with which last event terminated the dynasty of the Ptolemies in Egypt, when our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea on the occasion of the first census being taken, and while Quirinius was governor of Syria.” The reckoning here given dates from the time that Augustus was first made consul; from which time there were forty-one years complete to the third before the Christian era, and twenty-eight after the subjugation of Egypt. At that period, therefore, which to a nearness coincides with the real time of Christ’s birth, Eusebius plainly believed, that Quirinius presided over Syria, and that a census was taken: and so also did Irenæus, Hær. ii. 22, 6; Tertullian adv. Jud. c. 9; Clemens Alex. Strom, i. p. 147, etc. In all these passages both the fact of a general census, and the presidency of Quir. over Syria, at the time of Christ’s birth, are distinctly assert ed. Of what nature the census might be, or whether the time of its being taken might precisely accord with the exact period of Christ’s birth, is not now the question. But in regard to the Syrian presidency of Quir. there is an important notice in Tacitus, Annal. iii. 48, which he introduces in connexion with the death of Quir., A.D. 21. Nihil ad veterem et patri- ciam Sulpiciorum familiam Quir. pertinuit, ortus apud municipium Lanuvium: sed impiger militæ et acribus ministeriis consulatum sub divo Augnsto, mox expugnatis per Ciliciam Homonadensium castellis insignia triumphi adeptus, datusque rector C. Cæsari Armeniam obtinenti Tiberium quoque Rhodi agentem coluerat. Quod tunc patefecit (viz. Tiberius) in Senatu laudatis in se officiis et incusato M. Lollio, quern auctorem C. Cæsari pravitatis et discordiarum arguebat. Here we learn respecting Quir., first that he was a man of comparatively obscure origin; then, that he had approved himself to be expert in military affairs, and services that called for stringent measures, in consequence of which he had attained to the consulship under Augustus, by-and-by also got the triumphal badges for having stormed the fortresses of the Ho-monadenses, (The triumphal badges or ornaments were the honours granted in place of a triumph, after triumphs ceased to be held except by the Emperors. They consisted in the permission to receive the titles bestowed on those who did obtain triumphs, to wear in public the robes peculiar to them, and to bequeath triumphal statues to their descendants.) and was afterwards appointed counsellor or guardian to Caius Cæsar on receiving Armenia. He had also paid court to Tiberius, when residing at Rhodes in a sort of exile, and Tiberius reported to the Senate in laudatory terms the services rendered to him by Quir., while he charged M. Lollius with having led C. Cæsar into vicious and quarrelsome courses. Now, as the C. Cæsar here mentioned, one of the grandsons of Augustus, is known to have obtained Armenia in the year B.C.1, and as Quir. was raised to the consulship in B.C.12, it is manifest, that the conquest of the Homonadenses must have been accomplished in the interval. It remains, therefore, to be inquired who these people were, and in what position Quir. was, when he made himself master of their fortified places. The Homonadenses are mentioned by Pliny, Hist. Nat. 5:23, 94, as a people in the farthest parts of Cilicia, near the Isauri, with a fortified town, Homona, and forty-four strong holds situated in rugged valleys or ravines. Strabo also occasionally mentions them, and places them in the rough parts of Cilicia, near the Isauri, and the Pisidians, 14:1, 4, 24. There can be no doubt, therefore, about their character and position; they were evidently a hardy and troublesome set of mountaineers, occupying a number of forts in the more inaccessible parts of Cilicia, and requiring a vigorous and energetic warrior, like Quir., to bring them into subjection. But how should he have come into conflict with them? Or what might be the province held by him, when he gained such victories over the Homonadenses, and triumphal ornaments on account of them?

Various provinces might be, and have been thought of. (1.) Proconsular Asia; but this will not suit. For the Homonadenses did not live within the bounds of that province; and, besides, proconsular Asia having come before this into a state of entire subjugation, had no legion stationed in it (Tac. Ann. iv. 5;) and hence there could have been no such victories won by its governor as to secure for him triumphal honours. (2.) Nor could it be Bithynia and Pontus; for Galatia lay between this province and the region of the Homonadenses. It was also a senatorian province, and had no legionary force; even Pliny, in Trajan’s time, had none, though his case was somewhat peculiar, having been sent to put things in order. It was usually assigned, too, to men of only praetorian rank (Dio, liii. 12;) so that, unless we should betake to merely groundless conjectures, the province of Bithynia and Pontus must be excluded from the number of those with whom Quir. might be supposed to have been connected. (3.) Galatia has been pointed to as the probable region; but this also fails in the requisite conditions; for the possessor of it had no legion assigned him, with which he might carry on such warlike operations as would entitle him to triumphal honours. Nor were the Homonadenses situated in Galatia, but on its borders; so that the governor of the province, even if he had the command of a legion, could have had no call to make war upon those Cilician mountaineers. It is also known, that the province of Galatia was wont to be committed to a man of prætorian rank (Eutrop. vii. 5; Euseb. Chron. p. 168.) (4.) Cilicia alone remains, which seems to be indicated by Tacitus as the province—so far, at least, the province of Quir., that the people, whose forts were scattered through it, lay within his jurisdiction. But Cilicia by itself was by much too small a province for a consular man, at the head of a legion; it must have been conjoined with some other district. It is stated by Dio, liii. 12, that when Augustus surrendered, in the 27th year of his reign, the thoroughly reduced and quiet provinces to the Senate, he reserved Cilicia (because of the fierce and warlike tribes that were in it,) and also Cyprus. Afterwards, however, in B.C. 22, Cyprus was granted to the Senate, (Dio, liv. 4.) It, therefore, could not have been coupled with Cilicia to make out a sufficient province; and it seems impossible to think of any other region than Syria. The conclusion thus arrived at from the examination of the passage in Tacitus, is confirmed by evidence from other sources. For example, in the year B.C. 17, Syria and Cilicia appear to have been associated under one provincial administration; since, when Cn. Piso then obtained the presidency of Syria, and required to levy troops against Germanicus, he sent an order to the chiefs (reguli) of the Cilicians to furnish him with supplies of men (Tac. Ann. ii. 70, 78.) It is by no means probable, that either he would have issued such an order, or that they would have complied with it (especially in a war against Germanicus,) unless the governor of Syria had a legal right to their services. And in the course of the proceedings that followed, during which Piso himself acted treacherously, he is reported to have seized the fortress of Celenderis, which Tacitus designates a town in Cilicia (Ann. ii. 80,) and Strabo also places in the highlands of Cilicia (xiv. 4.) But it is also connected with Piso’s province, which was Syria; for Piso was accused by Tiberius to the Senate of seeking to possess the province (the province, namely, over which he had been appointed) by force of arms—armis repetita provincia (Tac. Ann. iii. 12)—and on this very account the Emperor is said to have been implacable toward Piso, that he had taken arms against the province—ob bellum provinciæ inlatum (Ann. iii. 14.) In another passage of Tacitus, Ann. vi. 41, it is stated that Vitellius, president of Syria, sent troops A.D. 36, to subdue the Clitae, a people of Cilicia, as work that properly fell under his administration. It thus appears, that both about B.C. 25, and A.D. 36, Cilicia was conjoined with Syria into one province, and placed under the sway of one imperial representative; and so it remained till the times of Vespasian. From these data there seems no avoiding the conclusion, that Quir., at the time that he possessed himself of the forts of the Homonadenses throughout Cilicia, was the legate of Augustus and pro-prætor of Syria. It only remains to be ascertained, more narrowly, if such a thing be possible, over what period his presidency was spread, and how far down it reached. The determination of this point is to be sought in another series of passages, and chiefly in those which connect Quir. with Caius Cæsar. As the date of his elevation to the consulship precluded his connexion with Syria at an earlier period than B.C. 12, so his relationship to C. Cæsar fixes its termination to a period not later than about the commencement of the Christian era. For it was at the very close of the year B.C. 2, or the beginning of B.C. 1, that C. Cæsar obtained the government of Armenia, when it was threatened with war by Phraates, the Parthian king. Velleius, ii. 101, states, that he set out for Armenia a short time after his mother Julia was banished for her incontinence; and this banishment is known to have taken place before Kal. Oct. of B.C. 2. It was some time after this that Caius set out, and he took Greece, Egypt, Palestine, on his way. He even appears to have spent the winter at Samos, where he was visited by his stepfather Tiberius, at that time resident in Rhodes (Suet. Tib. c.11.) The year immediately B.C. must, therefore, have been nearly spent before he left Samos; and in the following year, A.D. 1, he was designated consul, and set forth toward the region over which he was appointed. The year after this he brought Phraates to a conference, in which the Parthians agreed to abandon Armenia. But in a subsequent war with Tigranes the Armenian, he received a wound, of which he died in A.D.4, the wound itself having been received in the third year. So that Quir., on being appointed rector to C. Cæsar, evidently did not require to quit his Syrian presidency sooner than some time in the year B.C. 2, and it might even be supposed, on a hasty consideration, that about two years later might have been soon enough. But as the determination of this point is one both of some nicety and of some importance, it is necessary to look a little more closely into the circumstances of the time. In the passage formerly quoted from Tacitus, the Emperor Tiberius was represented as commending Quir. for the part he had acted toward Caius Caesar, while standing in the relation of rector to him, and, at the same time, severely blaming M. Lollius. (The rector was not a guardian in the ordinary sense, but a person of skill in war and experience in affairs, who could act as confidential adviser and counsellor to a youthful prince, at the commencement of his public career.) Tacitus does not expressly say, though his language seems to imply, that Lollius held the same relation to C. Cæsar that Quirinius had done. But Suetonius distinctly calls him comitem et rcctorem C. Cæsaris (Tib. c.12, 13,) and adds, that from the charges made by Lollius against Tiberius, Ti berius perceived, when he went on a visit to C. Caesar at Samos, that the mind of the latter had become alienated from him. And it also appears from a passage in Yelleius, ii. 102, that when the conference was held with the Parthian king, Lollius was present, and represented himself as appointed by Augustus to be a sort of regulator to his youthful grandson—veluti moderator em juventæ filii sui. It thus appears, that M. Lollius had become rector to C. Caesar about the end of B.C. 1 or the beginning of A.D. 1, when the young commander was passing the winter at Samos, and that he continued to hold the same position for a year or two afterwards. What time, then, must be assigned for Quir. being rector? It has been thought by Norisius (in Cenot. Pisan. ii. 9,) that he succeeded Lollius in the office, as it is mentioned by Tacitus in connexion with C. Caesar’s obtaining Armenia. But this is untenable. For in the Latin idiom he is said to obtain Armenia, who has acquired the legal right to preside over it, whether he may actually have taken possession of it or not. And from the position and import of the words in the passage of Tacitus (insignia triumphi adeptus, datusque rector C. Cæsari—Tiberium quoque Rhodi agentem coluerat,) it seems plain, that Tiberius was at Rhodes at the time when Quir. had obtained his triumphal honours and had become rector to C. Cæsar. Hence M. Lollius must have succeeded Quir., and not this the other. It is also certain on another account; for by comparing Tacitus, Ann. iii. 22 and 48, it appears that Quir. had, in A.D. 21, been married about twenty years to Lepida, a lady of high rank at Rome, whom Augustus had destined for Lucius Cæsar, the brother of Caius. But this Lucius died in A.D. 2; and hence Quir. must have gone to Rome, and become married to Lepida about the time that Caius actually entered on his Armenian administration. It is clear, therefore, that Quir. must have been made rector to C. Cæsar immediately on the latter crossing the sea on his way to the East, and remained with him for a year or so, and that M. Lollius was sent to take his place toward the beginning of the first year of the Christian era. It seems probable also, that Quir. accompanied C. Cæsar to Egypt, and that both together paid a visit to Tiberius at Rhodes, with which the latter was well pleased; while by the time Tiberius visited Caius at Samos, Lollius had become rector, and had begun to alienate the mind of Caius from his stepfather.

Such, then, are the successive links of the history, as brought out by this investigation: Quir., it is ascertained, was governor or president of Syria, some time subsequent to B.C. 12, when he obtained the consulship, and before A.D. 1 or 2, when he seems to have gone to Rome, and become married to Lepida;—after entering on his Syrian presidency, he carried on a difficult, and, no doubt, somewhat arduous conflict, with the warlike mountaineers of Cilicia, and on account of his successes against them obtained triumphal honours;—about a year before the Christian era he was appointed rector to C. Cæsar, in order to prepare him for the administration of affairs in Armenia, for which both military prowess and a considerable measure of diplomatic skill were requisite;—it was, however, while he was governor of Syria that he held this office of rectorship, for it was as governor of that province that he was more peculiarly qualified to give the counsel and aid that were needed to one who was going to fulfil a difficult and dangerous mission in the neighbouring region of Armenia—whence Lollius, and another person, who succeeded him in the one office, also succeeded him in the other—they became both presidents of Syria and rectors of C. Cæsar. But since the common Christian era is four years later than the actual birth of Christ, it follows that Quir. must have been governor of Syria about the time that Christ was born, and for a year or two subsequent to the event. And thus the statement of St. Luke, reiterated by several of the Christian fathers, that Quir. was president of Syria at the time when Jesus was born at Bethlehem, is fully vindicated, though the proof is reached only by a minute and lengthened deduction, and it is again the paucity, not the fulness of the collateral sources of information, which has brought into suspicion the accuracy of the sacred historian. (In the text, we have given only the evidence bearing on Quir.’s presidency about the time of our Lord’s birth. But since the investigations of Norisius, referred to in the preceding discussion, it has been held by most writers on the subject (for example, by Ores well, Harmony, Vol. I., Diss. V., Meyer, Alford, etc,) that Saturninus was president of Syria at the time of Christ’s birth, that in the year of His birth (viz. u. c. 750) Varus became president, and continued, probably, for five years, till he was succeeded by another Saturninus. It is admitted, however, for instance, by Mr. Ores- well, that coins have come to light, which do not readily correspond with this representation. And the more careful inquiries of Zumpt tend to establish the following as the real succession:—C. Sentius Saturninus became president of Syria in the year 9 B.C. (i.e. before the common Christian era,) as may be inferred from Jos. Ant. xvi. 9. 1, who also speaks of him as a man of consular rank, and of great authority, xvi. 11. 3, etc.; then, it appears from coins and other collateral evidence, that Varus obtained the Syrian presidency in B.C. 6, and continued for about two years. The precise time when this Varus was superseded is doubtful; for here, both the notices of Josephus, and other accounts of Syrian affairs, are somewhat meagre and confused. Evidence, however, has been produced of L. Volusius Saturninus having held the government of Syria; and it is certain that he must have quitted it in the year 6 A. D., because then Quir. was appointed to Syria, with the design of reducing Judea to a Roman province, and annexing it to Syria. But between this 6th year after A. D., and the 6th before it, when Varus entered on his office, there is room, according to the usual practice of Augustus, for at least one legate, and possibly more than one, to fill up the space. And it is here that the legation, first of Quir. and then of Lollius (both of a somewhat special character, and lasting but a short time,) come in. So that the succession stands thus:—C. Sentius Saturninus became president B.C. 9; P. Quinctilius Varus, B.C. 6; P. Sulpicius Quirinius, B.C. 4; M. Lollius, B.C. 1; C. Marcius Censorinus (mentioned by Velleius as for a short time after Lollius, who killed himself, rector of C. Cæsar and governor of Syria,) A.D. 3; L. Volusius Saturninus, A.D. 4; P. Sul. Quirinius, A.D. 6, etc.)

II. The other points connected with the subject need not detain us long. They refer to the nature of the census, for which, it is said, a decree was issued by Caesar Augustus, and to the compass of territory it embraced—whether the whole Roman world, or simply that portion of it which was bounded by the regions more immediately in the eye of the Evangelist. In regard to this part of the inquiry—which, as already stated, is not touched upon by Zumpt—it ought to be borne in mind, that here also our information is extremely scanty; and it is very possible, that if ampler materials were within our reach for determining the political relations and movements of the time, all would become perfectly plain. In such a matter, it should be enough, if there is nothing obviously irreconcilable with the Evangelical narrative and certainthings that make it reasonably probable. It should also be noted, that while the Evangelist says that the census was taken while Quir. was governor of Syria, he does not affirm it to have been personally conducted by him in Judea. It merely happened to be coeval with his Syrian presidency, and formed a first census, as contradistinguished from a second. St. Luke being himself a native of Syria, and very probably writing to a Syrian, quite naturally indicated the name of the governor presiding at the time over the region, and the relation of this census to another, with which the governor was known to be officially connected. In regard to the ἀπογραγή itself, it is impossible to arrive at any very definite conclusion. The word strictly means an enrolling, though very commonly an enrolment with a view to taxing—taking an account of men’s persons and goods for the purpose of laying on them an equitable proportion of the public burdens; and hence it might often with propriety be rendered by our word taxing. But, undoubtedly, there were cases in which this term would be too specific; in which, at least, the immediate act was not directly associated with any pecuniary rating. Those who, with Lardner, would regard the Evangelist as writing. of the whole world in the restricted sense that is, as embracing merely the districts more immediately in his eye, the provinces subject to the jurisdiction of Herod—think they discover a probable account of the transaction in certain notices of Josephus respecting the latter days of Herod’s reign. In the Ant. xvi. 9, 3, 10, 9, it is stated that Herod toward the close of his life, “lost the Emperor’s favour, and was forced to submit to many disgraces and affronts;” in consequence of which he sent an ambassador to Rome, who succeeded, though not without difficulty, in explaining matters and effecting a reconciliation. Further, in Ant. xvii, 2, 6, the historian having mentioned the Pharisees as a powerful and subtle party, ready to attempt anything against those who were obnoxious to them, adds, “When, therefore, the whole Jewish nation took an oath to be faithful to Cæsar and the interests of the king, these men to the number of above 6000, refused to swear.” He proceeds to mention, that for this act of contumacy they were fined by Herod, while, on their part, they declared that God had decreed to put an end to the government of Herod and his race. This came to the ears of Herod, and proved the occasion of death to not a few of their number. Now, it is supposed that the oath of fidelity here spoken of as having been exacted towards Cæsar and the interests of Herod, might be identical with the enrolment or census of St. Luke; the rather so, as the time must have been nearly the same in both cases, and the national expectation of another king than Herod, or any that could spring from his family, did then also assume a very definite and specific form.

Whatever truth, however, there may be in all this, as regards Herod and the people of his dominions, it must be owned that it scarcely meets the conditions of the historical statement presented by the Evangelist. In the account of the Jewish historian the matter seems to lie between Herod and his people, and to be altogether of local interest; while with the Evangelist it is the decree of the Emperor—δόγμα παρὰ Καίσαρος Αὐούστου—which alone comes into notice; and the object of this is represented in the most general terms, as ordering an enrolment for the whole world, πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην. Of course, not absolutely the whole; the words must in any case be understood with some limitation; for wide as the Roman empire was, there still were, in the age of Augustus, regions of considerable extent and ample resources, respecting which he would never have dreamt of issuing a decree of the kind here specified. We are constrained to think, at the very utmost, of a universality co-extensive with Caesar’s acknowledged supremacy: but to that, both the words themselves and the connexion in which they stand, seem most naturally to point. There is some reason to believe, as Mr. Greswell has shown (Harmony, vol. i., p. 536 sq.,) that Augustus did take measures for effecting, not merely partial censuses—of which various are incidentally noticed by the ancient historians—but also surveys of a more general kind. There appears, for example, to have been made in his reign a general geometrical survey of the empire, which, though not mentioned by any historian extant, is yet explicitly referred to by several writers, especially by such as treat of rural affairs. Thus Frontinus de Coloniis says, Huic addendæ sunt mensuræ limitum et terminorum ex libris Augusti et Neronis Cæsarum; and speaks further of a surveyor Balbus, qui tempo-ribus Augusti omnium provinciarum et civitatum formas et mensuras compertas in commentarios contulit, et legent Agrariam per universitatem provinciarum distinxit ac declaravit. Various other authorities are cited by Mr. Greswell to the same effect. And it certainly can be regarded as by no means unlikely, that along with a general measurement of the empire, Augustus should have sought to obtain a general census of its inhabitants. The one could scarcely fail to seem the proper complement of the other. And it is also known that Augustus left behind him what is called breviarium imperii (Tac. Ann. i. 11; Suet. Aug. c. 102; Dio, lvi. 33,) which it took many years to complete, and which would in all probability be based to some extent on returns regarding the population of the empire. But the accounts we have of it are brief, and the history, in particular, of Dio, appears to be defective in respect to this period.

Supposing such a measure to have been prosecuted by Augustus, there is no need for imagining that the decree ordering the returns must have been issued for the whole empire at once, and appointed to be carried out simultaneously throughout all the provinces. It would be more likely to be carried into effect piecemeal; although, when speaking of it in connexion with any particular province, a writer of the period would naturally connect the special work in his region of the empire with the decree of the Emperor ordering its general accomplishment. So the Evangelist may be conceived to have done. And it tends still further to confirm this view of the nature and design of the census here spoken of, that the very mode of taking it seems to indicate a specific difference between it and the census afterwards taken by Quirinius, when Judea was formally annexed to Syria. Of the latter it is said, that the express design of it was to take an account of the people’s substance; and Quir. himself is designated an appraiser of their means—τιμητὴς τῶν οὐσιῶν (Ant. xviii. 1.) Had the first census been of this description, there could have been no need for so early a renewal of it. And, besides, the circumstances noted by the Evangelist in regard to the holy family, seem to indicate that other things than property were in question; since, instead of being enrolled where their dwelling and substance (if they had any) existed, they repaired to what was reckoned their own city—theirs, it would appear, only by genealogical descent and personal claims; for, if any property had belonged to them there, they should not have been obliged to lodge in the mere out houses of the inn. Such things seem best to accord with a census of persons merely, apart from the valuation of their property.

Finally, as to the relation of the census to the Syrian presidency, it should be borne in mind, that the accounts both of the census itself, and the Syrian presidents at this time, are extremely brief and indistinct. As it was about the very time of our Lord’s birth, that Quir. appears to have taken the place of Varus, one can quite easily conceive, that the enrolling may have partly fallen under the one administration, and partly under the other. It is also quite conceivable and even probable, that, as the appointment of Quir. seems to have been made (according to the notice of Tacitus) for the more immediate purpose of bringing into subjection the Homonadenses in the western and less accessible parts of the province, Yarus, his predecessor, may have been ordered to remain for some time in the east, till Quir. was at liberty to enter on the regular administration of the affairs of the province. These are quite natural suppositions in the circumstances; and they may sufficiently account for the mention made by Josephus of Varus in Ant. xvii. 9, 3, as being still president of Syria, shortly after Herod’s death. He may have been so, in point of fact, as regards the eastern part of the province, although not strictly the president of Syria at the time. But the notices are so partial and incomplete, that it is impossible to exhibit more than a probable view of the circumstances of the period. From what has been established, there is valid ground for asserting, that it is not our Evangelist who has reason to fear the fullest inquiry, and that the more the actual relations of the time are known, the more patent and conclusive should be the proof of his historical accuracy.