cheenc03a.pdf

QUIRINIUS
~am~,~ffice. The view dMomm~n is that this reviour tenure
war m j-I a.c., and that rhe crushing of the fiomonadenies,
who dwell in Cilicin, at that time attached lo ,he pronnceof
Syria, w, an event of thir firsf proconsulate. It cannot well
be dated ear1i.r because Sentius Saturninus governed Syria
9-7 a.c.. snd ~ ~ < ~ Varur ~ r from i l i 7 s.c. ~ ~ to after rhe denth of
Herod (Tac. Hirf 69). since he put down a redition which
.rose when Herod - died. -~~.
Amid these facts, the rtatementr of Lk. ar to the
date and circumstances of the biith of - Terus 121.5) , -, raise
2, The tens intricate questions. The n~iraculour
events preceding the birth cannot be
dircurred from the historical point of view; but the
airerted census in Jud;ea and the journey of Joseph and
Mary to Bethlehem come within the field of historical
investkation. .
Lk's statements are as follows :-
(I) Cmrar Augustur decreed a general census of the
Roman world. Of such a general census nothing is
known from other sources, though Augustun made a
census of Roman citizens only. However, we need
not delay over thin statement. which is unimoortant
~ ~~
~ ~~
for our purpose, and may be merely an exaggeration.
(2) This census was first carried out in Palestine in
the days of Herod, when Quirinius war governor of
Syria. Here several difficulties arise. From the abovecited
testimony of Tacitur, it appears that Quirinius
was not proconsul of Syria ilntil after the death of
Herod. Palestine being not sttictly a part of the
Roman Empire, but a dependent or protected kingdom
under Herod, a Roman census would not be carried
out in that district. On the other hand, we know that
when in 6 A.D. Archelaus the son of Herod was deposed
from his trtrarchy of Judea, aud the district was
annexed to the province of Syria, Quirinius, who was
then for the second time proconsul of Syria, carried out
a censur in Judea, which caused, as we learn fmm
. lorephus . (Ant. xviii. lzl. much disaffection in that
country. It is not unnatural to suspect that Lk. may
have misdated his cenrur.
(3) For the purposes of the cenrur every man went to
the abode of his family or clan : thus Joseph went to
Bc:thlehem the town of David,' and with him his
affianced wife, Mary. It is, however, pointed out that
in a Roman census every man reported at his place of
residence. No instance is known to us in antiquity in
which the citizens of a country migrated to the ancestral
home of their family, in order to be enrolled. In any
care, no ancient census would require the presence of
anv bnt the head of a household. Women
~ ~
would
certainly not have to appear in person.
These considerations have led many hisroriarn, luuh
ar Mommsen, Gardthausen, Keim, Wrizsacker, and
Schiizre, to the view that 1.k.'~ statements
a, Theory. about thecenrusofQuiriniurarealtogether
mistaken. On the other hand, some
writers. such as Hurchke and Wiereler and many
English theologianr, have adopted an apologetic attitude
in reeard " to ~- 1L:s sratementr.a The most recent
apologetic work on the subject is that of Prof. W. M.
Ramsay, Was Chrirt born at Bethlehem r in which
work it is pointed out in regard to Vuirinius that Lk.
does not say that it was he who conducted the census.
but only that it was made when he was in some position
of authority in Syria (+lrll$u, not duOirwaror, proconsul).
He may have been in command of troops of
the Syrian province against the Hornonadenees at the
time. It is further maintained that a censur conducted
by Herod in his own dominions might decidedly differ
1 [On the birthplac~ of David, see DAVID, O I: D~sin:
JL"*M 5 4.1
2 A &mmary, md rcfuration of their views will be fo~nd in
i,o-ir3 (ET i. z ro5..r3),
saorer'~ cvt i?
QUIVER
from a Roman census, especially in the point that the
people might be numbered not by domicile, but by clan
or family.
h new element hsr been introduced into the dircursion
by the discovery from papyri published by Merrrr.
tirenfell, Kenyon, and others, that an enrolment
occurred in Egypt at intervals of fourten years from the
year 20 A.D. onwards, and probably from the time of
the regulation of Egypt by Augustus, that is, also in the
years 6 A.D. and 8 B.C.. and further that this enrolment
was a census by families, not a mere valuation
of property. One or twodefinite, though not conclusive,
pieces of evidence, seem to indicate that this periodical
C~~SUS was not confined to Egypt, but was, in some
cares at all events, extended to Syria.
Arguing on the basis of thir new discovery, Prof.
Ramsay maintains that a cenrus may probably have
been held in Syria in 9-8 B.c., and gives certain reasons
why, if Herod at the same time proposed a censur in
Judza, he should have postponed it to the year 6 ac..
and then carried it out on a different plan from that
usual in a Roman census. The date 6 B.C. Ramsay
accepts as probably that of the birth of Jesus.
To let forth Prof. Ramlay's arguments at length is impoi)ible
and the,. are so minute ar not to be- com rerrion. But d
f$mt their validity they leave uner lainel seuerml dificulrier.
hy should a cenrur in Judzn ge dared by Lk. by the
irrelevant fact of r campng" being at the time fought by
Quiliniu5 in CilicirP Even d an enrolment by tribes war
carrled out by Herd, would this bs likely to involve a journey
of all Jewr to the native town of their family? How could
the rewnce of Mary be required nt kthlehem, when t war a
=ttL principle in .I1 ancient law to trtat ,he male head of.
familyar rerpnrible forall its mcmberr? In Palnrine crpe5ially
it ir difficult to imagine such a rocceding ar the summoning of
rromen to appear &fore an .,fZcr for
On all them
quertionr the new dlrcouenes rhed no light.
The )art difficulty is further increnred by the ureby Lk. of
the word illmm6u*