2:1-20. The Birth of the Saviour, its Proclamation
by the Angels, and its Verification by the
1-3. How Bethlehem came to be the Birthplace of Jesus Christ, although Nazareth was the Home of His Parents. This explanation has exposed Lk. to an immense amount of criticism, which has been expressed and sifted in a manner that has produced a voluminous literature. In addition to the
commentaries, some of the following may be consulted, and from Schürer and Herzog further information about the literature may be obtained.
S. J. Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp. 71-81, T. & T. Clark, 1892; T. Lewin, Fasti Sacri, 955, Longmans, 1865; J. B. McClellan, The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour, i. pp. 392-399, Macmillan, 1875; C. F. Nösgen, Geschichte Jesu Christi, pp. 172-174, Beck, 1891; *E. Schürer, Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, i. 2, pp. 105-143, T. & T. Clark, 1890;
B. Weiss, Leben Jesu, i. 2, 4, Berlin, 1882; Eng. tr. pp. 250-252; K.
Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, pp. 66-106, 129- 135, Deighton, 1864; O. Zöckler, Handbuch der Theologischen
Wissenchaften, i. 2, pp. 188-190, Beck, 1889; A. W. Zumpt, Das
Geburtsjahr Christi (reviewed by Woolsey in the Bibliotheca Sacra, 1870), Leipzig, 1869; D. B.2 art. “Cyrenius”; Herzog, Pro 2:13. art. “Schatzung”;
P. Schaff, History of the Church, i. pp. 121-125, T. & T. Clark, 1883;
Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? 1899; Hastings, D.B. art.
Chronology of N.T.
1. Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἐξῆλθεν δόγμα παρὰ καίσαρος Αὐγούστου ἀπογράφεσθαι πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην. For the constr. see detached note at the end of ch. 1.; and for ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις see on 1:5 and 39. The time of the birth of John is roughly indicated. Even in class.
Grk. the first meaning of δόγμα, as “opinion, philosophic tenet,” is not very common (Plat. Rep. 538 C); it is more often a “public decree, ordinance.”
This is always the meaning in N.T., whether an ordinance of the Roman Emperor (Act 17:7), or of the Apostles (Act 16:4; comp. Ign. Mag. 13;
Didaché, 11:3), or of the Mosaic Law (Col 2:14; Eph 2:15; comp. 3 Mal 1:3; Jos. Ant. xv. 5, 3). For ἐξῆλθεν δόγμα comp. Dan 2:13 (Theod.). In Daniel δόγμα is freq. of a royal decree (3:10, 4:3, 6:9, 10). See Lft. on Col 2:14.
ἀπογράφεσθαι. Probably passive, ut describeretur (Vulg.), not middle, as in ver. 3. The present is here used of the continuous enrolment of the
multitudes; the aorist in ver. 5 of the act of one person. The verb refers to the writing off, copying, or entering the names, professions, fortunes, and families of subjects in the public register, generally with a view to taxation (ἀποτίμησις or τίμημα). It is a more general word than ἀποτιμάω, which implies assessment as well as enrolment. But it is manifest that the
ἀπογραφή here and in Act 5:37 included assessment. The Jews were exempt from military service; and enrolment for that purpose cannot be intended. In the provinces the census was mainly for purposes of taxation.
πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην. “The whole inhabited world,” i.e. the Roman Empire, orbis terrarum. Perhaps in a loose way the expression might be used of the provinces only. But both the πᾶσαν and the context exclude the limitation to Palestine, a meaning which the expression never has, not even in Jos. Ant. viii. 3. See on 4:5 and 21:26. In inscriptions Roman Emperors are called κύριοι τῆς οἰκουμένης. The verse implies a decree for a general census throughout the empire.
It must be confessed that no direct evidence of any such decree exists beyond this statement by Lk., and the repetitions of it by Christian writers.
But a variety of items have been collected, which tend to show that a Roman census in Judæa at this time, in accordance with some general instructions given by Augustus, is not improbable.
1. The rationarium or rationes imperii, which was a sort of balance-sheet published periodically. by the emperor (Suet. Aug. xxvii.; Cal. xvi.). 2. The libellus or breviarium totius imperii, which Augustus deposited with his will (Tac. Ann. i. 11. 5, 6 ; Suet. Aug. ci.). 3. The index rerum gestarum to be inscribed on his tomb, which was the original of the Marmor
Ancyranum. But these only indicate the orderly administration of the
empire. A general census would have been useful in producing such things;
but that does not prove that it took place. Two passages in Dion Cassius are cited; but one of these (liv:35) refers to a registration of the emperor’s private property, and the other (lv:13) to a census of Roman citizens. If Augustus made a general survey of the empire, of which there is evidence from the commentarii of Agrippa mentioned by Pliny (Nat. Hist. iii. 2, 17), this also would have been conveniently combined with a general census, although it does not show that such a census was ordered. Of some of the
provinces we know that no census was held in them during the reign of Augustus. But it is probable that in the majority of them a census took place; and the statement of so accurate a writer as Lk., although
unsupported by direct evidence, may be accepted as substantially true: viz.
that in the process of reducing the empire to order, Augustus had required that a census should be held throughout most of it. So that Lk. groups the various instances under one expression,just as in Act 11:28 he speaks of the famines, which took place in different parts of the empire in the time of Claudius, as a famine ἐφʼ ὅλην οἰκουμένην. Of the Christian witnesses none is of much account. Riess seems to be almost alone in contending that Orosius (Hist. Rom. vi. 22. 6) had any authority other than Lk. Cassiodorus (Variarum Epp. iii. 52) does not mention a census of persons at all clearly;
but if orbis Romanus agris divisus censuque descriptus est means such a census, he may be referring to Luk 2:1. The obscure statement of Isidore of Spain (Etymologiarum, v. 26. 4; Opera, iii. 229, ed. Arevallo) may either be derived from Lk. or refer to another period. What Suidas states (Lex. s.v.
ἀπογραφή partly comes from Lk. and partly is improbable. At the best, all this testimony is from 400 to 1000 years after the event, and cannot be rated highly. The passages are given in full by Schürer (Jewish People in the T. of J. C. i. 2, pp. 116, 117). But it is urged that a Roman census, even if held elsewhere, could not have been made in Palestine during the time of Herod the Great, because Palestine was not yet a Roman province. In a.d. 6, 7, when Quirinius certainly did undertake a Roman census in Judæa, such a proceeding was quite in order. Josephus shows that in taxation Herod acted independently (Ant. xv.10. 4, xvi. 2. 5, xvii.2. I, II. 2; comp. 17:8, 17:4).
That Herod paid tribute to Rome is not certain; but, if so, he would pay it out of taxes raised by himself. The Romans would not assess his subjects for the tribute which he had to pay. Josephus, whose treatment of the last years of Herod is very full, does not mention any Roman census at that time. On the contrary, he implies that, even after the death of Herod, so long as Palestine was ruled by its own princes, there was no Roman taxation; and he states that the census undertaken by Quirinius a.d. 7 excited intense
opposition, presumably as being an innovation (Ant. 18:1. 1, 2:1).
In meeting this objection, let us admit with Schürer and Zumpt that the case of the Clitæ(?) is not parallel. Tacitus (Ann. vi. 41. 1) does not say that the Romans held a census in the dominions of Archelaus, but that Archelaus
wished to have a census after the Roman fashion. Nevertheless, the objection that Augustus would not interfere with Herod’s subjects in the matter of taxation is untenable. When Palestine was divided among Herod’s three sons, Augustus ordered that the taxes of the Samaritans should be reduced by one-fourth, because they had not taken part in the revolt against Varus (Ant. xvii. 11, 4; B. J. ii. 6. 3); and this was before Palestine became a Roman province. If he could do that, he could require information as to taxation throughout Palestine; and the obsequious Herod would not attempt to resist.1. The Value of such information would be great. It would show whether the tribute paid (if tribute was paid) was adequate; and it would enable Augustus to decide how to deal with Palestine in the future. If he knew that Herod’s health was failing, he would be anxious to get the
information before Herod’s death; and thus the census would take place just at the time indicated by Lk., viz. in the last months of the reign of Herod.
For “Clitæ” we should read Kietai; Ramsay, Expositor, April, 1897.
2. αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο. This may be accepted as certainly the true reading; 2 and the meaning of it is not really doubtful.“This took place as a first enrolment, when Q. was governor of Syria.” The object of the remark is to distinguish the census which took Joseph and Mary to
Bethlehem from the one undertaken by Q. in a.d. 6, 7, at which time Q. was governor of Syria. But was he governor b.c. 4, when Herod died? It is very difficult to establish this.
From b.c. 9 to 6 Sentius Saturninus was governor; from b.c. 6 to 4 Quinctilius Varus. Then all is uncertain until a.d. 6, when P. Sulpicius Quirinius becomes governor and holds the census mentioned Act 5:37 and also by Josephus (Ant. xviii. 1, 1, 2. 1). It is quite possible, as Zumpt and others have shown, that Quirinius was governor of Syria during part of the interval between b.c. 4 and a.d. 6, and that his first term of office was b.c. 3, 2. But it seems to be impossible to find room for him between b.c. 9 and the death of Herod; and, unless we can do that, Lk. is not saved from an error in chronology. Tertullian states that the census was held by Sentius Saturninus (Adv. Marc. iv. 19); and if that is correct we may suppose that it was begun by him and continued by his successor. On the other hand, Justin Martyr three times states that Jesus Christ was born ἐπὶ Κυρηνίου, and in one place
states that this can be officially ascertained ἐκ τῶν ἀπογραφῶν τῶν γενομένων (Apol. i. 34, 46; Dial. lxxviii.).
We must be content to leave the difficulty unsolved. But it is monstrous to argue that because Lk. has (possibly) made a mistake as to Quirinius being governor at this time, therefore the whole story about the census and
Joseph’s journey to Bethlehem is a fiction. Even if there was no census at this time, business connected with enrolment might take Joseph to
Bethlehem, and Lk. would be correct as to his main facts. That Lk. has confused this census with the one in a.d. 6, 7, which he himself mentions Acts v. 37, is not credible. We are warranted in maintaining (1) that a Roman census in Judæa at this time, in accordance with instructions given by Augustus, is not improbable; and (2) that some official connexion of Quirinius with Syria and the holding of this census is not impossible. The accuracy of Lk. is such that we ought to require very strong evidence before rejecting any statement of his as an unquestionable blunder. But it is far better to admit the possibility of error than to attempt to evade this by either altering the text or giving forced interpretations of it.
The following methods of tampering with the text have been suggested: to regard πρώτη as a corruption of πρώτῳ ἔτει through the intermediate
πρωτει (Linwood); to insert πρὸ τῆς after ἐγένετο (Michaelis); to substitute for Κυρηνίου either Κυιντιλίου (Huetius), or Κρονίου=Saturnini
(Heumann), or Σατουρνίνου (Valesius); to omit the whole verse as a gloss (Beta, Pfaff, Valckenaer). All these are monstrous. The only points which can be allowed to be doubtful in the text are the accentuation of αὕτη and the spelling of Κυρηνίου, to which may perhaps be added the insertion of the article.
Among the various interpretations may be mentioned—
(1) Giving πρῶτος a comparative force, as in Joh 1:15, Joh 1:30: “This taxing took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria” (Huschke, Ewald, Caspari); or, as ἐσχάτη τῶν υἱῶν ἡ μήτηρ ἐτελεύτησε (2 Mac.
7:41) means “The mother died last of all, and later than her sons,” this may mean, “This took place as the first enrolment, and before Q. was governor of S.” (Wieseler). But none of these passages are parallel: the addition of
ἡγεμονεύοντος is fatal. When πρῶτος is comparative it is followed by a simple noun or pronoun. It is incredible that Lk., if he had meant this, should have expressed it so clumsily.
(2) Emphasizing ἐγένετο, as in Act 11:28: “This taxing took effect, was carried out, when Q. was governor of S.” (Gumpach, etc.); i.e. the decree was issued in Herod’s time, and executed ten or twelve years later by Q.
This makes nonsense of the narrative. Why did Joseph go to Bethlehem to be enrolled, if no enrolment took place then? There would be some point in saying that the census was finished, brought to a close, under Q., after having been begun by Herod; but ἐγένετο cannot possibly mean that.
(3) Reading and accentuating αὐτὴ ἡ ἀπογραφή: “The raising of the tax itself (as distinct from the enrolment and assessment) first took place when Q.,” etc. “Augustus ordered a census and it took place, but no money was raised until the time of Q.” (Ebrard). This involves giving to ἀπογραφή in ver. 2 a totally different meaning from ἀπογράφεσθαι in ver. 1 and
ἀπογράψασθαι in ver. 5; which is impossible.
(4) With αὐτὴ ἡ ἀπογραφή, as before: “The census itself called the first took place when Q.,” etc. The better known census under Q. was commonly regarded as the first Roman census in Judæa: Lk. reminds his readers that there had really been an earlier one (Godet). This is very forced, requires the insertion of the article, which is almost certainly an interpolation, and assumes that the census of a.d. 6, 7 was generally known as “the first census.” From Act 5:37 it appears that it was known as “the census”: no previous or subsequent enrolment was taken into account. In his earlier edition Godet omitted the ἡ: in the third (1888) he says that this
interpretation requires the article (i. p. 170).
McClellan quotes in illustration of the construction: αἰτία δὲ αὕτη πρώτη ἐγένετο τοῦ πολέμου (Thuc. i. 55, 3); αὔτη τῶν περὶ Θήβας ἐγένετο ἀρχή καὶ κατάστασις πρώτη (Dem. 291. 10); πρώτη μὲν μήνυσις ἐγένετο αὕτη κατὰ τούτων τῶν ἀνδρῶν (Andoc. iii. 5); αὕτη πρώτη δημοτελὴς κρίσις ἐγένετο ἀρετῆς πρὸς πλοῦτον (Aristid. i. 124); and adds the curious remark that “the Holy Spirit would have us note that the Saviour of the World was registered in the first census of the World !”