SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM CHAPTER 1 THE QUESTION AT ISSUE NEITHER Mark nor John mentions where Jesus was born. Mark 1:9 says: “Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized of John in the Jordan”. In John 1:45 Philip speaks of him as “Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph”; and in Acts 10:38 Peter mentions “Jesus of Nazareth”.

These expressions obviously do not imply that Mark, or John, or the author of Acts considered Nazareth to be the place of Jesus’ birth. They merely show that Nazareth was universally considered to be the abode of his parents, the place which had been his home, coming from which he had appeared before the world. Similarly the expression, “son of Joseph,” used by Philip in John 1:45, cannot be taken as indicating John’s own opinion, but merely as showing the current belief.

Again, John 7:40,41, quotes the opinions expressed in Jerusalem about Jesus: some of the multitude said: “This is of a truth the prophet”: others said: “This is the Christ”: but some said: “What, does the Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said that the Christ cometh of the seed of David and from Bethlehem?”

These are the popular sayings, and it is obvious that they are arranged to form a climax; but the last, which is really the strongest recognition of Jesus as the Messiah, gains all the more emphasis because it has the form of an objection to him. He was the Prophet: He was the Christ: He fulfilled all the prophecies about the coming of the Christ. The irony, which makes the objectors unconsciously bear such emphatic witness in his favor, might have been expected to be clear and impressive to every rational mind. But there is no blindness so complete as that of the historical critic with a bad theory to maintain; and the critics of this class actually quote this passage as a proof that John did not believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Would they be consistent, and maintain also that John did not believe him to be of the seed of David, though that was indubitably the accepted doctrine of the early Church, as is attested by Paul, Romans 1:3, 2 Timothy 2:8, as well as by the Synoptics?

But the two points mentioned by the objectors must go together. They who quote 7:41 as a proof that John did not know the second point must infer also that John did not know the first. Every Christian reader of John’s Gospel would recognize the irony involved in the first point, for he knew the doctrine set forth by Paul and the Synoptics. He would therefore necessarily recognize that the second point was also ironical.

Accordingly, every scholar who judges literature on literary grounds will recognize that the writer of the fourth Gospel assumes such perfect familiarity in his readers with the story of the birth in Bethlehem, that not merely must he be ranked among the witnesses to it, but he must have written at a time when this belief was a part of recognized Christian teaching; and it is probable that this will be urged by some scholars as a proof that the fourth Gospel springs from a much later period, after the story as given by Matthew and Luke had had time to become a fundamental part of Church doctrine.

But a remarkable feature in the Gospels, at least of Matthew, Luke and John, is that they assume in their readers such a background of knowledge about the life of the Savior. They are written for the use of persons who were already Christians, and who already had the life of Jesus in their minds as the foundation of their faith. None of the Gospels is intended to be a formal biography: their completeness is moral and spiritual and not historical:” they are, in reality, Gospels. But the facts of the life of Jesus were fundamental in the Gospel, and from that point of view each Gospel had to present a record of facts, actions and words sufficient to bear the structure of faith which had to rest upon it. But John, in particular, assumes that his readers know the facts recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, and his work is an unintelligible phenomenon in literature unless this is recognized.

Now Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Matthew 2:6 points out that this place of birth was the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Ruler of Israel was to be born there. Yet they are also fully aware that Jesus was considered by the world to be a native of Nazareth, and that he had been brought up from infancy in that city. Matthew 2:23 again sees in the up-bringing at Nazareth the fulfillment of another prophecy.

How, then, do they account for the general oblivion of the real place of birth?

Matthew begins with the birth of Jesus. He tells nothing about any previous connection of his parents with Nazareth; but says that they retired to Nazareth while the Child was still an infant, being in fear of the reigning King of Judea. If Luke’s History had not been preserved, it would have been unhesitatingly concluded on the authority of Matthew that the parents of Jesus had never lived at Nazareth until after the birth of the Child. And though Matthew does not explicitly assert that, yet it is hard to think that he could have expressed himself as he has done, if he had known that the parents had their original home in Nazareth.

Luke goes farther back, in accordance with his profession to have studied all things from their origin. He mentions that both Joseph and Mary resided at Nazareth. He tells that they made frequent visits to Jerusalem, and that the mother had relatives there or in the neighborhood; and he explains what was the cause that led them to make a brief visit to Bethlehem at such a moment that Jesus was born there.

Luke does not indeed say explicitly in so many words that the visit was intended to be a mere temporary one; and this has led some commentators to suggest that there may have been an intent on the part of the parents to change their residence to Bethlehem. But the cause stated in 2:4, 5, implies a mere temporary visit; and the language of 2:39 shows that after the brief visit they returned to their own city, Nazareth, and implies that this had always been their intention.

The occasion of this short visit to Bethlehem is thus described by Luke. In accordance with the orders of the Roman Emperor, Augustus, there was made an enrollment, or numbering, of the population of Herod’s kingdom; and this was made according to households and tribal descent and local tribal connection, so that those Hebrews who were not residing in the proper city of their tribe and family were obliged to go to their city in order to be enrolled there.

Further, it seems to be implied that the wife, as well as the head of the house, had to go to the proper city (or for some reason felt it a duty to go), so that the household as a whole might be numbered in the tribal and family center.

Joseph, then, with Mary, his wife, went to his proper city, Bethlehem, to be numbered there among his own people, “because he was of the house and family of David”.

It has been maintained by many scholars in modern times that the census is either a fiction or a blunder; that the circumstances connected with it, which Luke relates, are contrary to history; and, in short, that the story is unhistorical and impossible, not in one way merely, but in several. It is asserted as unquestionable that the sole germ out of which the story has developed is the fact, recorded by Josephus, that about A.D. 6-7 there was made a census and valuation of Palestine, the first and the only one which the Romans held in that country; and that Luke has transferred this census, with the officer, Quirinius, who made it, to a different period about nine or twelve years earlier, when it was for various reasons impossible that any census could have occurred.

It has been urged with triumphant certainty as established on incontrovertible evidence that the whole story of chapter 2, with all its pathetic and romantic incidents, is a mere fiction, destitute of even as much historical foundation as most historical novels possess. It is asserted as a demonstrated truth that the story contradicts the established facts of contemporary history; and that any one who accepts the ordinary canons of historical reasoning must relegate the whole talc of the birth of Christ to the realm of imaginative fiction. Nor is it only the extreme school of critics that reject the talc as an invention. Many of those scholars who thoroughly accept the trust-worthiness of the Gospel narrative as a whole abandon the attempt to defend this incident, and either pass by on the other side, or frankly admit that it is at least in part erroneous, a mixture of Dichtung und Wahrheit .

Against the trustworthiness of this narrative the following are the main lines of argument: — 1. It is declared to be a demonstrated fact that Augustus never ordered any general “Enrollment,” or census, to be made of the whole Roman world.

Gardthausen, the latest historian of Augustus, speaks most emphatically on this point. He goes even so far as to declare that it is inconsistent with Augustus’s aims to attribute to him any such intention: he quotes the words of Luke, and then adds that, for the emperor’s plans, a general census of the empire was neither necessary nor suitable. The eminent German scholar here displays a familiarity with Augustus’s intentions and the limits of his aims, which is quite unjustified by the scanty evidence accessible to us. Such assumption of the right to pronounce negative judgments is not the spirit in which the history of Augustus ought to be written, and such a wild statement as this shows a momentary loss of the historic instinct, which enables a writer to distinguish between legitimate inference and loose imagination. It is one of the places in Gardthausen’s work where a regret rises strong in every reader’s mind that Mommsen has never found opportunity to write the history of that period.

In truth, the distinguished historian of Augustus was not justified in asserting more than that no evidence was known to him corroborating Luke’s statement as to Augustus’s intentions. It will be my aim to show that evidence was in existence, apparently unknown to Gardthausen, which affords some confirmation of Luke’s assertion; and establishes it, when Luke’s words are properly translated, on a basis of high historical probability. 2. Even if Augustus had ordered a census to be made of the whole empire, it is maintained that such a census would not have extended to Palestine, which was an independent kingdom and not subject to the orders of Augustus.

There is a mixture of truth and error in this line of argument. It will be our aim to demonstrate that, while the application of the Roman census by Roman officials to Herod’s kingdom could not be accepted as credible, yet Luke does not speak of any such application. The argument is founded on a false interpretation. Luke nowhere asserts or implies that the census was made by a Roman official. He states that the birth of Jesus occurred in the days of Herod the King of Judea, and in the country over which that king ruled: compare 1:5 and 2:4. He merely mentions the Roman officer, Quirinius, for purposes of dating according to the ancient style, employed generally before eras and numbering of years had come into literary use, just as he mentions various kings and priests in <420301> 3:1,2 for the same purpose. He assumes that his readers would appreciate the fact that the census in the territory of King Herod was conducted under the immediate orders of the king himself.

Further, Luke certainly understands that Herod’s kingdom was a part of the Roman world, and that Herod was bound to obey orders issued by Augustus in respect of numbering the population of the Roman world.

We shall have to show — what no one except a theological critic with a theory to maintain would dream of denying — that Herod’s kingdom was a part of the Roman world; that it was not independent, but ought rather to be styled a “dependent state”; and that any tendency on the part of such dependent kings to disregard their duty of submission to the general principles of Roman policy was sharply repressed by the emperors. 3. Even if a census had been held in Palestine, it is asserted that there would have been no necessity for Joseph and Mary to go up from Nazareth to the city of Bethlehem, inasmuch as a Roman census would be made according to the existing political and social facts, and would not require that persons should be enrolled according to their place of birth or origin. The Roman method necessarily was to count the population according to their actual residence. It is, however, an essential point in Luke’s story, that it should explain how the son of a resident in Nazareth came to be born in Bethlehem, and thus fulfilled the prophecy that the Messiah was to be born in that city. Hence it is contended that Luke’s fiction is doubly erroneous, for even if it were true it would not lead to that journey, which is the critical point in the history.

There can be no doubt that in the Roman census the existing facts were recorded, and that any disturbance of the existing distribution of population would defeat the purpose and impair the value of the census.

Therefore, if the census which Luke had in mind were one carried out purely after the Roman method, it would not furnish the explanation which is the prime reason for mentioning the census. That must be freely conceded.

But, far from asserting that this census was carried out strictly after the Roman method, Luke explains at the outset that it was made on a different principle, not merely by households (as the Roman method required), but also at the same time according to descent and stock, that is by tribes.

It will be our aim to show why this modification of the Roman method was necessary for Herod in his peculiar position: he disguised the Roman and foreign character by the additional requirement that the census should be tribal and thus less alien to the national feeling. 4. It is maintained that no census was ever held in Judea until A.D. 6-7, on the ground that that “great census” ( Acts 5:37) is described by Josephus as something novel and unheard of, rousing popular indignation and rebellion on that account.

We freely concede that the attempts which have been made to find in Josephus any allusion to an earlier census held under Herod have failed.

They have been directed on the wrong lines they have been made with a view to discover signs of such a knowledge of the finances of Palestine as would imply a formal Roman census and valuation made under Herod.

We also fully acknowledge that the earliest census and valuation of property made after the Roman fashion in Palestine took place, as Josephus says, in A.D. 7. It is a necessary part of our case that a totally new departure was made in that year; and that the novel, unheard-of, and anti-national proceeding roused indignation and rebellion. In all that Josephus is thoroughly right. But the census of Herod was tribal and Hebraic, not anti-national. It was wholly and utterly unconnected with any scheme of Roman taxation; and it was conducted by Herod on strictly tribal methods. It roused little indignation and no rebellion; and therefore gave no reason for Josephus to notice it.

It is plain too how great an extent these four arguments against the “Enrollment” hang together, and depend on a false character ascribed to the operation. When Luke’s narrative is looked at from the proper point of view by the true historical and sympathetic judgment, with the intention, not of picking all possible faults, but of understanding in the best light the testimony which he gives, we shall see that his evidence explains satisfactorily a peculiarly obscure episode in Roman provincial history.

And we shall find that in one more case the progress of discovery in Egypt has set in a new light the problems that seemed insoluble to our predecessors, and made perfectly clear what was obscure to them.

In addition to these four closely connected arguments, another of a different character is advanced. 5. It is affirmed that Quirinius never governed Syria during the life of Herod, for Herod died in 4 B.C. and Quirinius was governor of Syria later than 3 B.C. and probably in 2 or 1 B.C. Therefore a census taken in the time of Quirinius could not be associated with the birth of a child “in the days of Herod, King of Judea”.

The conclusion of Mommsen, of Borghesi, and of de Rossi, that Quirinius governed Syria twice, has been generally accepted by modern scholars.

Quirinius went to govern Syria for the second time in A.D. 6. The proof that his first governorship of Syria fell as late as the year 2 or 1 B.C. is incomplete, depending on an estimate of probabilities; and it is founded on the assumption that a statement made by Suetonius is inaccurate. We shall try to show that the decided balance of probabilities is in favor of his having held command in Syria before Herod died. In the present defective state of the evidence, one cannot go further than a probable statement.

The propositions which we seek to defend are only probable. The evidence is too scanty to demonstrate any of them in such a perfectly conclusive fashion that the most prejudiced minds must be convinced. But how many of the “facts” of ancient history are demonstrated beyond all reach of cavil and dissension? Every one who has studied the foundations of ancient history knows that most of our knowledge is founded on a balance of evidence, often a very delicate balance; and, if there were any strong motive to make it worth while fighting the case, almost any detail in ancient history can be called in question. What I am concerned to maintain is that all our positions are the most probable issue of the scanty evidence, and that some of them rest on testimony, outside of Luke’s writings, which in ordinary historical criticism is reckoned sufficient justification, while the others are in themselves quite natural, and there is practically no evidence against them, so that Luke’s authority should be reckoned as sufficient to establish them.

The possible views with regard to the present question seem to reduce themselves to three: — 1. The story of the birth of Christ, as given by Luke, is so suspicious and encumbered with so many difficulties that it is as a whole incredible. 2. The story is true. 3. The main part of the story is true, but the reference to Quirinius is wrong, and the incident occurred ten to fourteen years before his census. It is possible to cut out the verse about Quirinius, which is a mere date added by Luke, and leave the story otherwise complete; but all the rest hangs together, and if one detail be false, everything is affected.

As to the third alternative, besides the general considerations already urged, see to what a dilemma it reduces its supporters! They acknowledge that the date is added in error by Luke. The rest they hold to be true, because Luke learned it from some other authority not so inaccurate as himself. After discrediting Luke, they proceed to accept everything that is most difficult to believe in his History. But, when the channel through which the story reaches us is unworthy of belief, everything that comes through the channel is discredited; the story has in truth not a leg to stand upon except Luke’s personal authority as a safe and trustworthy judge of truth and weigher of evidence. Those who first discredit Luke’s personal authority, and then attach credibility to his story, are far less reasonable and critical than they who accept the whole.

Obviously, the truth of the story in Luke 1,2, can never be demonstrated.

There will always remain a large step to be taken on faith. A marvelous event is described in it. They only will accept it who, for other reasons, have come to the conclusion that there is no adequate and rational explanation of the coming of Christianity into the world, except through the direct and “miraculous” intervention of Divine power.

But it is highly important to show that the circumstances with which Luke connects this marvelous event are true, and that, in things which can be tested, he does not fall below the standard of accuracy demanded from the ordinary historians.

Again, those who hold Luke’s statement about the enrollment to be a mere blunder ought to give some explanation of the way in which the blunder originated. It is generally stated as an explanation that Luke was dependent on Josephus for the facts of general history which he mentions; and that, as he found in Josephus an account of “the Great Enrollment” made by Quirinius in A.D. 6-8, he erroneously connected this enrollment with the birth of Christ.

In discussing this suggested explanation, I shall lay no stress on the steadily growing consensus of opinion that all attempts to prove the dependence of Luke on Josephus have failed, and that Luke’s work was composed before Josephus’s work on Jewish Antiquities was published; for it is possible to maintain that the error was made through confusion and misunderstanding of some other historian’s statement. Luke, who was not born when the events in question occurred, was dependent on some earlier authority or other for his knowledge of the Roman circumstances which he mentions; and the possibility of error arising must be admitted.

But it is necessary to realize clearly how much is involved in the assumption that such an error was made. It is implied not merely that Luke misplaced that important event — fundamental in the Roman organization of Palestine — “the great census”; but also that he distorted the character of that census, which was, beyond all doubt, conducted on the Roman system without the slightest regard to tribal connection, and that he used this distortion of the census to explain why a family belonging to Nazareth came to be present in Bethlehem. Such a series of blunders of a very gross type cannot have been mere slips or mistakes due to ignorance. They bear on their face the character of deliberate invention.

They have been concocted for a purpose, viz ., to lend verisimilitude to the tale that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. But a tale which is buttressed by such shameful falsifications loses all claim on our belief. And what can we say about a historian who concocts such a series of inventions? What condemnation could be too strong for his shameful conduct? What words too sharp to characterize his imposture?

I put the question to any reasonable person: Is it consistent with human nature that a writer who claims to be earnestly setting forth the simple facts should begin with so impudent a series of fabrications? Can any reasonable judge believe that the author who wrote the rest of the two books could be guilty of such deliberate deception?

Another explanation may perhaps be offered, viz ., that Luke did not himself invent the connection between the birth of Jesus and this fraudulent census, but that he incautiously adopted a series of errors which had either grown in popular tradition or been invented by some older writer.

In the first place, we reply, oriental tradition does not take this character: it does not invent such a circumstantial historical setting, whose aim is to work an incident into a place in Roman Imperial history. The census would obviously have been introduced here, not by popular fancy, but by the calculated invention of a person trying to give plausibility to a fiction.

Secondly, Luke’s work has all the appearance of being the first attempt to show the place which early Christian history occupied in the general history of the empire: the author is evidently taking the Gospel from his earlier authorities, and on the ground of his own historical inquiries stating its place in Roman history, a subject in which his Jewish authorities took no interest: probably, therefore, he is not dependent on older Christian writers for his statements about the census This is, I think, generally admitted.

Thirdly, Luke devotes much care to the relations of early Christianity to the Roman state; it was easy for him to acquire correct knowledge as to the Roman census; and, if he allowed a statement on that subject to find a place in his book, he makes himself responsible for it in the fullest sense.

CHAPTER - LUKE’S ACCOUNT OF THE ENROLLMENT LUKE wrote for readers belonging to the civilized Graeco-Roman world; and he conceived the History which he presented to his readers as occupying a place in the general history of the Roman world. He often speaks of “the world”; but to him “the world” was strictly the Roman world, and any order issued by Augustus affected the whole world, as he says in <420201> 2:1. Accordingly, at important stages in the action, he inserts a few brief notes, just sufficient to show the position of his subject in the general history of the empire.

The most important of these notes is contained in the following words, <420201> 2:1-4, which we give according to the Revised Version:

Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, made when Quirinius was governing Syria.

And all went to enroll themselves, every one to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David — to enroll himself with Mary his wife.

It might seem hardly necessary to state that in this passage of Luke the term “world,” oijkoume>nh , must be understood as the “Roman world, and not the entire earth with all its inhabited lands. But some modern scholars actually charge it as an error that this passage makes an order of Augustus effective throughout the whole earth, whereas the order would have no force except in the Roman empire. Accordingly we must point out that in several places Luke uses the same term “world” when he obviously is speaking only of the Roman empire. To the citizens of the empire all the rest of the earth often passed out of mind; and when they spoke of the world their view was restricted to the Roman world. So, for example, Demetrius, the silversmith of Ephesus, spoke about the State-Goddess Diana, “whom all Asia and the world worshippeth,” i .e ., to worship whom the whole province Asia and the Roman empire send their representatives and their crowds of visitors. Again, Paul and Silas were accused before the magistrates of Thessalonica because they had “turned the world upside down”; the accusers were not thinking of the disturbance of order among the outer barbarians, but only in many parts of the Roman empire. Similarly, any ordinary rational interpretation will recognize that Luke 2:1 speaks of the order of Augustus as issued for the whole Roman empire.

What was the extent of “the world” or “the Roman world,” of which Luke speaks?

It included, of course, Italy and the organized Roman provinces. But, further, Luke evidently considered that it included the dependent kingdoms, such as Judea, for he describes this order as being carried out in the kingdom of Herod. That such was his point of view seems not to be appreciated by the scholars who ridicule the whole episode; and hence they think that he contradicts himself, when he speaks as if this order extended to the kingdom of Herod.

The question then arises whether it is justifiable to regard these dependent kingdoms, Judea and others, as forming part of the Roman world.

This question Strabo, writing about A.D. 19, answers emphatically in the affirmative. In the last chapter of his Geography he gives a description of the Roman empire as it was when he was writing about A.D. 19. He describes it as extending over the entire coasts of the Mediterranean Sea, and he expressly includes in it the western part of the African coast (Mauretania) which was ruled by King Ptolemy, who had just recently succeeded his father Juba II. Some parts of this empire are, he says, governed by kings, while part is in the form of provinces. There are also subject to the Romans certain dynasts, and chiefs, and priests: and these live according to certain national laws. He distinguishes this whole empire, containing these various territories and governments and provinces, from the non-Roman and barbarian world. He declares that in the part of the empire which is directly under the authority and power of the emperor there are not merely Roman governors of three grades sent from Rome by himself, but also kings, and dynasts, and native officials of lower degree.

Strabo uses several expressions which show how completely he considered these kingdoms to be part of the Roman world. He defines the entire complex of territories as “the possessions of the Romans,” ta< tou>twn ; he speaks of sumpa>shv cw>rav th~v uJpo< JRwmai>oiv ; and he describes how the Romans. obtained them, prosekth>santo .

Moreover, it is impossible to suppose that Augustus, when he defeated Mark Antony, abandoned the suzerainty which the latter had certainly exercised over many lands, and gave away to independent kings what had once belonged to Rome. The eastern parts of Asia Minor had been treated by Antony as subject to his own absolute authority. When he pleased, he set up a king over part of them; when he chose, he degraded the king. But whoever was the king, Antony claimed from him contributions and military service; and they all sent or led their troops to swell the army of their supreme lord at Actium. It would be irrational to suppose that Augustus, who claimed to be the champion of Rome against Antony, abandoned great territories which Antony had held to be under Rome.

We cannot, therefore, doubt that Strabo expresses the view held by Augustus and by all Rome, that the territory ruled by these dependent kings was part of the Roman empire. They were subject kings, and not free from the suzerainty of Rome.

Appian describes the subject kings whom Antony appointed, including Herod, as paying tribute. We cannot doubt that the same was the case under Augustus. The empire did not abandon its claim to gain something from these kings; and Augustus would not gain less than Antony had gained. On the other hand, it seems to have been left to the discretion of the native rulers to govern and to collect revenue according to native customs and laws. Strabo, in his final chapter; distinguishes between the provinces, to which governors and collectors of taxes were sent from Rome, and the countries subject to Rome, but governed by native princes according to native laws.

Further, Strabo on p. 671 describes the intention of the Romans in setting up these subject kings. He is speaking of Cilicia Tracheia, but he expresses the Roman theory as it was applied generally. Some of the subject countries were specially difficult to govern, either on account of the unruly character of the inhabitants, or because the natural features of the land lent themselves readily to brigandage and piracy. As these countries must be either administered by Roman governors or ruled by kings, it was considered that kings would more efficiently control their restless subjects, being permanently on the spot and having soldiers always at command.

But the history of the following century shows how, step by step and district by district, these countries were incorporated in the adjacent Roman provinces, as a certain degree of discipline and civilization was imparted to the population by the kings, who built cities and introduced the Graeco-Roman customs and education.

It appears, therefore, that when Luke counts the kingdom of Herod part of “the Roman World,” his point of view agrees with the ideas expressed by Strabo and held generally in the empire.

The decree of Augustus which Luke mentions is commonly interpreted as ordering that a single census should be held of the whole Roman world.

This is not a correct interpretation of Luke’s words. He uses the present tense (ajpogra>fesqai pa~san thnhn ), and he means that Augustus ordered enrollments to be regularly taken, according to the strict and proper usage of the present tense. What Augustus did was to lay down the principle of systematic “enrollment” in the Roman world, not to arrange for the taking of one single census.

It deserves notice that Malalas, who took the false sense from Luke and describes Augustus as ordering that a single enrollment should be made, unconsciously changes the expression and uses the aorist where Luke uses the present tense. Similarly, when Luke tells that Joseph went up for enrollment on one definite occasion, he uses the aorist (ajne>bh and ajpogra>yasqai ).

Thereafter the text of Luke proceeds naturally: “This was the first enrollment, while Quirinius was administering Syria; and all persons proceeded to go for enrollment each to his own city”. Here the presential tenses (ajpogra>fesqai and ejporeu>onto ) are necessitated by the sense: all persons, individually and severally, repaired to their proper cities for their respective enrollment. In the series of enrollments, which were inaugurated by the orders of Augustus, the first was the one with which the story is concerned; and Joseph, like the rest, went up from Galilee out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David.

From this passage, then, it appears that Luke’s conception of the procedure in the Roman empire was as follows: Augustus ordered a systematic numbering to be made in the empire. This system of numbering went on for a time, or more probably permanently, and hence the “first” of the series is here defined as the occasion on which the story turns. We may assume unhesitatingly that, if any such system was inaugurated, it would be periodic, recurring regularly either once a year or after a definite term of years.

It is not stated or implied by Luke that the system was actually put into force universally. The principle of universal enrollments for the empire was laid down by Augustus; but universal application of the principle is not mentioned That point was a matter of indifference to Luke. What he implies, indubitably, is that the system was put into force in Syria, for it would be quite irrational that he should speak as he does, unless declare that Luke refers to a hitherto unsuspected fact in the methods of Imperial administration.

But, if our interpretation of Luke’s words is correct, we must frankly admit that his credit as a historian is staked on this issue: there was a periodical numbering or enrollment in the Syrian province, and Christ was born actually during the time when the first enrollment of the series was being made in Palestine.

We observe that Luke knew about more than one “enrollment” or census (to use the strict Roman term). In 2:2 he speaks of a certain census as “the first”; in Acts 5:37 he mentions the census,” i .e ., the great census, meaning the epoch-making census taken about A.D. 7, when Judea had just been incorporated in the Roman empire as part of the province of Syria.

According to the proper and accepted canons of interpretation in ancient literature, he must be understood in these expressions to distinguish between the first census and the great census. In an ordinary Greek writer the distinction would be unhesitatingly drawn. Why should some scholars assume that Luke thought there had been one single census, as to the date of which he was in a the system had been in force for a time, at least, throughout the Syrian lands. Further, it is not easy to admit that Luke could have used these words, unless the system had come into permanent use.

We conclude, then, that if Luke’s authority is trustworthy, there must have prevailed during the first century a system of numbering the population at periodic intervals in the Syrian province, and probably elsewhere in the Eastern lands, or even in the whole empire.

If one had ventured ten years ago to draw this conclusion from the words of Luke, it would have been regarded as a reductio ad absurdum of his statement. The idea that such a system could have existed in the East, without leaving any perceptible signs of its existence in recorded history, would have been treated with ridicule as the dream of a fanatical devotee, who could believe anything and invent anything in support of the testimony of Luke. But now such revelations of order and method in the Roman Imperial Government, unmentioned and unheeded by historians, have resulted from epigraphic and archaeological investigation, that it is no longer so hazardous to state of utter confusion, when he uses language which in the simple and natural interpretation indicates two different census? A scholar should never start by assuming that the author whom he is interpreting is wrong; but to say that Luke in these two passages refers to one and the same census, is to fasten an error upon him at the outset, by disregarding the distinction indicated in his words.

Clement of Alexandria evidently understood the words of Luke in the same way as we have interpreted them. He speaks of the occasion when first they ordered Enrollments to be made. It is hardly possible to avoid inferring from these words of Clement that he knew of some system of enrollments, either in the empire as a whole, or at least in the province of Syria. His use of the plural and of the word “first” force this inference upon us.

Further, we shall find in chapter 7 that Clement, as residing in Egypt, was familiar with the Egyptian system of periodic enrollments. He could hardly avoid writing with this system in his mind, and his words imply beyond a doubt that he thought of some system of enrollments in Palestine. I do not see how any fair and unprejudiced critic can fail to conclude that Clement, rightly or wrongly, believed that the same system of periodic enrollments was maintained in Egypt and in Syria.

Again, Clement expressly says that the system of enrollments in Syria began with the one at which the birth of Christ occurred. Luke in all probability was his sole ultimate authority for connecting the birth of Christ with the first enrollment, he, no doubt, saw the statement also in other authorities, but they in their turn probably got it, whether immediately or ultimately, from Luke. But it is not so certain that Clement had no other authority than Luke for his belief that the system began in the reign of Augustus. He knew the system from his own experience in Egypt. It had recurred there regularly throughout his own life, and long before his time. It must have been a matter of common knowledge in his time what was the origin of the system. We are, I think, fully justified in quoting Clement as believing that the system of enrollments which he saw round him in Egypt, and which he thought or knew to be also practiced in Syria, began from Augustus and was made according to the, orders of Augustus.

A suggestion has been made that the Indictional Periods of fifteen years, which formed so important a feature in the administration of the later Roman empire, began to run from the census of Quirinius. On this theory the first census was taken in the year 3 B.C. as the beginning of the first Indictional Period. But it can be shown positively that the Indictional System did not prevail under the early empire. The Indictions are an invention of the fourth century; and not merely are those periods unknown in earlier time, but a contradictory system existed. Moreover, it is not easy to bring the evidence as to the duration of Herod’s reign into consistence with the theory that he lived till 3 B.C.

Our whole theory is based on the determination of the periodical enrollment system in the early empire; and for this fortunate discovery we are indebted to the wonderful progress of research in Egypt during the last few years.

CHAPTER - ENROLLMENT BY HOUSEHOLDS IN EGYPT RECENTLY, three different scholars announced about the same time, and independently of one another, the discovery that periodical enrollments were made in Egypt under the Roman empire, and that the period was not of fifteen years, as in the later system of indictions, but of fourteen years.

The same Greek term is used in the Egyptian documents and in Luke to indicate the census: they were called “Enrollments,” Apographai .

Mr. Kenyon of the British Museum had slightly the priority in briefly declaring that these “Enrollments” obeyed a cycle of fourteen years; but Dr. Wilcken followed him within a month or two with an elaborate paper, and shortly afterwards Dr. Viereck with another, discussing their period, nature and purpose. The three papers are the authority for what is here stated on the subject.

The facts relating to the “Enrollments” in Egypt are deduced from the actual census papers, many of which have been found (usually in a more or less fragmentary condition). The census was always taken after the end of the year to which it belongs; thus, for example, a census paper dated in the end of the year A.D. 90-91 contains a statement of the facts required for the enrollment of 89-90, and so on. The purpose evidently was to include in each enrollment all children born before the end of the first year of the census period, which we shall henceforth call the periodic year. All dates in these documents are given according to the Egyptian way of reckoning; and the Egyptian year, which began on the twenty-ninth day of August, was at the basis of the whole census system in Egypt. It is proved that enrollments were made for the years ending in the summer of A.D. 90, 104, 118, 132 and so on till 230. An enrollment also took place under Vespasian, but its date is not fixed by the evidence. There can, however, be no doubt that Dr. Viereck is right in placing it for the year 75- 76. Though the Egyptian year was employed, the census was carried out by Roman officials, and formed part of the Imperial system of administration.

It was the habit of the Romans in the East to adapt their arrangements to the custom of the country. They did not force the natives to adopt the Roman system of arranging the year and the months, but rather modified their practice to suit the native year, using an Asian year in the Province Asia, an Egyptian year in the Province Egypt, and so on. As the beginning and end of the years varied greatly in different Eastern provinces — all, however, being now solar years, like the Roman — we shall throughout these pages speak of the Roman year; and the reader will understand that in each province it has to be translated into the native year there employed. Censorinus mentions, as was to be expected, that the years of the Imperial system — anni Augustorum — were counted from the first of January: they differed in this from the years of any individual emperor’s reign, which during the first century were usually reckoned from the day on which the reign began, though during the second century the habit of reckoning them from the first of January became general.

Accordingly, instead of mentioning the enrollment for the Egyptian year falling in A.D. 89-90, we shall call it the enrollment for the Roman year A.D. 90. The periodic years, then, are as follows: B.C.. 23, B.C. 9, A.D. 6, 20, 34, 48, 62, 76, 90, 104, 118, 132, 146, 160, 174, 188, 202, 216, 230, 244, 258, 272, 286, 300, 314, 328.

In every case, of course, the actual enumeration began after the periodic year was ended, though the enumeration is called in the documents the enrollment of the past (periodic) year. Usually the enrollment paper is dated late in the following year; people were allowed to make their declaration at any time during the following year, and as human nature will have it, most people delayed until the year was approaching its end.

It appears, therefore, that already under Vespasian a system of periodical enrollments was the rule of Roman administration in Egypt. The existing documents establish its existence from A.D. 76 to 230; but the failure of documents attesting its previous or subsequent existence affords no evidence that it began under Vespasian or ended under Alexander Severus.

The preservation of papyri is so accidental and precarious, that imperfection and lacunae are the rule in every department which they touch upon. We must be grateful for the light they throw on any subject, but it would be absurd to reason, because no fragment of papyrus has been found to attest a fact, that therefore the fact did not occur. The argument a silentio , always a dangerous one, is especially dangerous where papyrusfragments are concerned.

On this point Mr. Grenfell writes: “I should admit that the argument a silentio cannot yet be used as regards the first century after Christ. About the second and third centuries it is, however, worth something, and also, I think, about the Ptolemaic period.” The silence of the papyri about the period before A.D. 76 therefore constitutes no argument that the periodic enrollments began in that year.

At the last moment Mr. Grenfell, in a letter dated 12th Sept., 1898, brings to my knowledge, and the courtesy of the discoverer permits me to mention, that Mr. Kenyon has found, and is on the point of publishing in the forthcoming volume of the Catalogue of British Museum Papyri , a document which mentions the enrollment for the eighth year of Nero, A.D. 61-62. Mr. Kenyon thinks that it implies also still earlier enrollments.

This important discovery will be regarded as a strong confirmation of the theory set forth in the following pages, and printed before I heard of the new evidence. The only argument that could be brought forward against the theory lay in the silence of the papyri; and already that silence is broken for part of the period. [Enrollment of A.D. 20, see Preface] The question, then, must be put — at what time and through whose organizing initiative is the Roman series of enrollments likely to have been begun? The answer to that question is not doubtful. We may appeal with confidence to the students of Roman history, and put the question in this way. We find that under Vespasian a system of periodical enrollments formed a fundamental part of the government of Egypt: these enrollments gave a basis on which a statistical account of the population according to households and place of residence at the beginning of each period could be drawn up. Whom should we expect to have introduced the system?

In the first place every one who has studied the history of Roman provincial administration would reply that Augustus was, in all probability, the originator of this Roman system in Egypt. Any important part of Egyptian administration which was in existence under Vespasian is probably as old as the organization of the country by Augustus. It is well known with what peculiar and jealous and minute care: he regarded that country. No Roman of senatorial or equestrian rank was per-mitten. even to visit it without special leave from the Emperor. It was considered as the granary of Rome; and it was regulated in the most careful way so that its harvests should be reserved for Roman needs, and its resources should be always calculable and certain, as far as care and forethought could make them so.

It is unnecessary to do more than briefly refer to those facts touching the policy and intentions of Augustus which have been skillfully collected and marshaled by a long succession of writers on this subject — his general survey of the whole empire: the rationes imperii , “a sort of balance sheet published periodically”: the libellus or breviarium totius imperii , a compendium of useful statistics about the kingdoms, the provinces, the allies, etc .

These show how carefully and methodically Augustus organized his splendid machinery of government on the basis of accurate, minute and complete knowledge of everything that concerned the subject peoples, and make it probable that the system of periodic enrollments, which alone rendered a complete statistical account of those peoples possible, originated from him, and formed part of his plan of Imperial administration.

In the second place, the system of periodic enrollments is likely to be as old as Augustus, because it probably rested on a pre-Roman foundation.

Every year’s discoveries strengthen the proof that the organization of Egypt was brought to a very high degree of perfection long before the Romans entered the country, and increase the probability that the germ or even the complete form of almost every detail of administration was found by Augustus already in existence in Egypt, and was merely adapted by him to Roman needs.

Mr. Grenfell notes that the silence of the Ptolemaic papyri about Household-Enrollment — constitutes an argument against its being an institution of the Ptolemaic period; whereas valuation papers of the class (described later in this chapter) are found not infrequently under the Ptolemies. There must, however, have been in that period some kind of numbering (as Wilcken thinks). Papyri are found c . B.C. 3000, “a kind of census list of a household,” naming the head of the house, resident female relatives, slaves, and young male children. Two Apographai of unusual character. occur, resembling the Household-Enrollment papers more than the Valuation papers, and dated B.C. 19 and 18, before the Periodic Household-Enrollment system was organized.

The probability remains that Augustus originated a new system in Egypt of Periodic Enrollment-by-Households, developing some previously existing system of numbering the population.

In the third place, as we saw in the preceding chapter, Clement of Alexandria believed that the system of enrollments originated from Augustus; and he expresses the general opinion held in Egypt at the end of the second century.

In the fourth place, chronological reasons suggest that the enrollments come down from the organization of Augustus, because the cycle leads us back to the year B.C. 23, from which dates the Imperial rule of Augustus in the most formal and complete sense. The Roman emperors, beginning from Augustus, reckoned the years of their reign according to their tenure of the tribunicia potestas , which constituted them “Champions of the Commons”; Augustus received the tribunician power on 27th June, B.C. 23; and the number of years in his Imperial title is reckoned invariably in all later inscriptions from that date. The Coincidence that the Enrollment- Cycle was arranged according to the official years of Augustus’s reign, is conclusive in favor of the view that Augustus inaugurated the system of periodical enrollments.

This coincidence, also, shows with almost complete certainty that the Fourteen-Years’-Cycle was not devised in Egypt, or for Egypt alone. Mr.

Grenfell points out to me that in Egypt the reign of Augustus was invariably reckoned from the taking of Alexandria, the first year being considered to begin on 29th August, B.C. 30; and there is not a trace of any other reckoning of his reign in the country. Had the Enrollment-Cycle been an Egyptian matter simply, it is in the last degree improbable that it would have been arranged according to the years of the tribunician power.

On the other hand, that was the natural system in general Imperial matters.

It was the only method of reckoning which was known universally throughout the empire: it was employed in every official statement of the Emperor’s title: it was sometimes used even in dating private inscriptions. The use of this epoch, further, proves in all probability that the Enrollment was, as Luke says, actually held first for the year B.C. 9. It could not be devised until after the reign began, for the epoch was unknown until the epoch-making event had occurred; and, after it had occurred, no time remained to arrange all the details for an Imperial enrollment for the current year. Hence we find a different style of enrollment paper used in Egypt in the years B.C. 19 and 18.

We see also why the Egyptian year 24-23, and not 23-22, was taken as that correspondent to the Roman year 23. Augustus’s reign began during the Egyptian year 24-23, two months before the end of that year on 29th August. Thus the reign of Augustus began officially in the Egyptian year B.C. 24-23. On the other hand, in any country where the year began in the spring, the official year 1 of Augustus would be the year B.C. 23-22; and the year 15, which was the first periodic year, would be B.C. 9-8.

These reasons justify the reasonable confidence that Augustus arranged a system of periodical “enrollments” in Egypt. As the system is fixed according to the year B.C. 23, in which the fully formed constitutional Principate was organized and the reign of Augustus in the official reckoning began, the arrangement of this system must have taken place later than that year. The system of enrollments must therefore be distinguished from the operation called by Marquardt the provincial census, which began to be taken in Gaul in B.C. 27.

The latter operation was intended to form the basis on which the taxation of the provinces of the empire should be regulated. It was repeated from time to time throughout the period of the empire, and was an essential part of the orderly working of the Imperial administration. That taxation should be proportionate to wealth was a Roman principle, and without frequent revaluation of property it was impossible to secure a fair apportionment of taxation. Augustus fully recognized the vast importance of making correct valuation of property in the provinces, as securing both fair taxation and a more lucrative revenue for the State.

Such enumeration and valuation of property was confined, as a rule, to Roman provinces, and was often made as soon as any new province was incorporated in the empire. Such, for example, was the case in Palestine when Quirinius, in his second Syrian governorship, made that country part of the empire. The novel proceedings on that occasion, and the strict inquisition into value of property, brought vividly home to the Jews that they were now wholly reduced to servitude under a foreign power, and led to much disorder and rebellion. The name census was used by the Romans to denote this characteristic institution. In modern usage the term census denotes the periodic numbering of the people, without valuation of property. In this study we use the terms “valuation” or “rating” and “enrollment”.

But the system of periodic enrollments in Egypt is quite different from the system of rating and valuation. The latter system also existed in Egypt; many census papers are preserved among the papyri, and Wilcken gives several examples of them on pp. 231-240 of the article which we have quoted above. These valuations seem to have been made annually; and it is often stated in the papers that the census is taken according to the orders of the governor of the province. They contain an enumeration and precise definition of all property in land, houses, and live stock belonging to the enumerator, often also a statement whether the property is free from debt or mortgage, and often an estimate of the money value, of the whole. Where there is no estimate of value, it is understood that the value is unchanged from previous valuations and can be found in the older official registers.

The same verb ajpogra>fomai is used in both kinds of papyri, and both operations seem to have been termed Apographai . But the periodic enrollment papers are distinguished by other criteria besides the want of statistics about property and money value; they are dated according to the year of the reigning emperor, and contain no reference to the orders of the governor; they state accurately and exactly which periodic enrollment they are intended for; and they always use the phrase “Enrollment-by- Household”, ajpografh< kat j oijki>an. These periodic enrollments according to the Four-teen-Years’-Cycle were therefore closely connected with the existing households, and served as basis for an enumeration of the total population. This operation obviously corresponds much more closely than the other kind of Egyptian census to the “enrollment” alluded to by Luke; and we shall therefore always allude to it as the enrollment system, or, more accurately, enrollment-byhousehold.

The enrollment papers were filled up and sent in to the proper official by the heads of households. In the enrollment paper, the householder specified the house, or part of a house, which belonged to him; he declared that he was formally enrolling himself and his family for the house-tohouse enrollment of the past year, twenty-eight of the Emperor Commodus, or whatever else the case was. But, if the owner did not live in the house himself, he enrolled only the tenants; if he kept lodgers, he enrolled himself, his family and the lodgers. He gave a complete enumeration of all the individuals who lived in the house, children, relatives, etc . In one case, twenty-seven persons are enumerated in one paper by a householder. No statement of income or of the money value of the house is given in the enrollment papers.

Thus, according to our theory, the nature of the case led the Romans to adopt a double system, which presents a remarkable analogy to our modern methods. We have an enumeration of the people every ten years, the census: the Romans numbered the people every fourteen years. We have an annual making up of the valuation roll, and an annual system of income tax returns. The Romans, likewise, found it expedient to require annual valuation of property; but they did not require any estimate of annual income, for they, like the United States, arranged their taxes, not according to income, but according to property.

The intention of this system of enrollment by households has been investigated by Wilcken. It furnished a complete enumeration of the population of Egypt; both provincials and resident Romans had to fill up their enrollment papers and send them in to the proper official. The papers not merely furnished the total numbers of the population; they were also useful in allotting the various burdens of public service, and especially they facilitated the conscription; and finally they gave information which aided in levying the poll-tax, determining the classes of persons who were free from the tax, and the date at which each male became of age to pay it (fourteen), or reached the age of exemption (sixty). According to Marquardt, 2., p. 199, a poll-tax was levied by the Romans only in countries where it had been customary from ancient times, or where there was for the time no survey of property available to furnish a standard for a more rational kind of tax. He is disposed to consider the tributum capitis in the province of Syria as not a poll-tax, but a tax on those engaged in an industrial occupation; but Wilcken seems clearly right in regarding the Syrian tax as a poll-tax, exactly similar to the Egyptian poll-tax.

Thus the Egyptian documents, and the inferences founded on them by comparison with other evidence, have revealed two most important and hitherto unsuspected facts. (1) In some parts at least of the empire the enrollment and numbering of the population according to their households was a distinct and separate process from the census and valuation, which previously was considered to be the only properly Roman kind of census. (2) The enrollment by households took place periodically, according to a cycle arranged according to the years of the reign of Augustus in Imperial, but not in Egyptian, reckoning. Probably this system was introduced later than 18 B.C.

NOTE Papyrus Br. Mus. CCLX. is a poll-tax register of A.D. 72-3, based on the Household-Enrollment of 61-2; and references to older poll-tax registers are made, which imply previous Enrollments. In fact the register is part of an existing system of some standing. [The Household-Enrollment of A.D. 20 has just been discovered: see Preface].

CHAPTER - THE SYRIAN ENROLLMENT IN 8 B.C.

IN the preceding chapter we have seen that, in all probability, Augustus inaugurated a series of enrollments in Egypt. Now, according to Luke, Augustus laid down the principle that “enrollments” should be made over the whole Roman world; and this assertion stands on a very different level of probability from that which it occupied before the Egyptian discovery.

If Luke be wrong, his error has been to extend over the whole Roman world a practice which Augustus established in Egypt. Every one must see that such an extension is not likely to have been made without some justification by the author of Acts, whoever he was. If there is anything certain about him it is that he had neither connection with Egypt nor interest in it, and that he was entirely uninfluenced by Alexandrian thought or Egyptian ideas; he even omits from his Gospel the incident of the flight into Egypt, which a writer connected with Egypt would be most unlikely to do. Such an author is not likely to have known about institutions peculiar to Egypt; and, if he thinks that the system of periodical enrollments, which existed in Egypt, was also found in other parts of the Roman world, there is a strong presumption that such was the case at least in those parts of the world which were best known to him. The reasons stated above, chapters 6 and 7, confirm this presumption.

Other considerations, also, prove that some attempt was made in Syria, whether systematically or sporadically, to number the population Such enumerations can be traced back to the reign of Augustus and to the government of Syria by Quirinius.

An inscription, which was long the subject of keen controversy and was condemned by Mommsen and many others as a forgery, was recently found to be genuine, when half of the long-lost stone on which it was engraved was rediscovered in Venice. In that inscription, which records the career of Q Aemilius Secundus, a Roman officer, who served under Quirinius when governor of Syria, it is mentioned that by the orders of Quirinius he made the “census” of the population of Apameia, enumerating 117,000 citizens. The emphasis laid on the number suggests (though it does not demonstrate) that the numbering of the total population was the chief object of the Apamean “census”; in that case it would correspond to the periodic enrollment by households in Egypt rather than to the annual valuation.

The inscription leaves it uncertain whether the Apamean numbering occurred in the first or second administration of Syria by Quirinius. He is called legatus Caesaris Syriae , without iterum , but there was no need for expressing in the inscription that he had held the government of Syria on two separate occasions. Our opponents, who hold that there was only one census under Quirinius, are justified in maintaining that this inscription refers to a numbering of the population of Syria, made by Quirinius in A.D. 7 concurrently with his census and valuation in Palestine. We, on our side, are, for a different reason, bound to maintain that Quirinius ordered this enrollment of Apameia (and of all the other states of Syria) to be made in A.D. 7, as will appear in chapters 9 and 11.

Again, Suidas mentions that Augustus numbered the population of the territory that belonged to the Romans, and it was found to be 4,101,017 men (a]ndrev ). It is obvious that Suidas did not simply invent this number, but had access to some other authority besides Luke (whom he quotes in one of the two places where he refers to this enumeration of the Roman world). The question is how far any confidence can be placed in that other authority. Had he real knowledge at his command?

The number seems so small as to be absurd. Josephus gives the population of Egypt, Alexandria excepted, as 7,500,000. Adding 500,00 as the population of Alexandria, we have the total Egyptian population, 8,000,000. But, according to Suidas, the population of the entire Roman world would not be much more than 21,000,000. Probably the populous countries of Syria and Asia Minor alone contained more than 21,000,000 inhabitants, though we must remember that no slaves were counted in the enrollments.

The most probable supposition is that Suidas is giving an inaccurate account of the total of Roman citizens. A numbering of Roman citizens was three times made by Augustus — 28 B.C., 8 B.C. and 14 A.D. — and the total was in each case between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000. The liability of numbers to corruption is exemplified in the result of Augustus’s first census. The Latin text of the Monumentum Ancyranum , expressed in Augustus’s own words, gives the total as 4,063,000, but the Greek translation gives 4,603,000, while Eusebius has it as 4,164,000. In the third census, Eusebius probably gave the correct total; but Jerome in his Latin version and the Armenian translator have both gone wrong in rendering Eusebius’s words. Suidas, finding this total in Eusebius, took it as representing the total population of the empire, instead of the sum of cives Romant , an error which was easily made after the time of Caracalla, when all free citizens of the empire were cives Romani . Further, like Jerome, he misunderstood the numbers in Eusebius. Syncellus gives the total in still another form.

Thus Suidas, when we trace him back, is found to have been using a distinct and good authority, but to be misunderstanding and misrepresenting it. He throws no light on Luke’s statement.

Further, there is a certain amount of positive evidence that “Enrollments” according to the Fourteen-Years’-Cycle were made in Syria and elsewhere.

According to Luke, the first enrollment was made a few years B.C. in the unknown year of Christ’s birth, which is variously fixed, and must have been somewhere between 8 and 3 B.C.. On the system that obtained in Egypt, the year 9 B.C. would be the beginning of the second period; and the scanty evidence that exists about the general survey of the empire, shows that any enrollment according to the Cycle is not likely to have been made until the beginning of the second period. We find, then, that the year 8 B.C. was the one in which the first “enrollment” would naturally begin to be made, if a Cycle was observed; for this enrollment was intended, as has been stated already, to include all children born in 9 B.C.

Now Tertullian declares that an “enrollment” was made by Sentius Saturninus, who was governor of Syria from about 9 to 7 B.C. It is obvious that Tertullian did not make this assertion on Luke’s authority, nor with the intention of bolstering up Luke. On the contrary, it has always been a serious problem how his statement can be reconciled with Luke’s words.

It can hardly be doubted that Tertullian was aware of the discrepancy between his own words and those of Luke; but he remains true to his own principle that “this world’s things must be tested by its own documents”. He had the authority of Roman documents that Sentius Saturninus was the governor in question; and he prefers to follow “this world’s documents”. The discrepancy with Luke would not trouble him; his belief was too robust-to be affected by trifles of that kind; but whether or not he understood how the apparent discrepancy arose, he at any rate followed his Roman authority in this detail.

Tertullian’s procedure was probably this: he knew that an enrollment period fell in 9 B.C. which was the first enrollment; and Roman authorities, either official documents or historians, showed him that Sentius Saturninus was governor of Syria at that time. The only other alternative seems to be that he investigated Roman documents, and found evidence that a census of Syria had been held by Saturninus. In the former case he was aware of the Fourteen-Years’-Cycle; in the latter case he knew of a census of Syria about 9-7 B.C. and in either case he is an important yet independent witness in favor of Luke, so far as concerns the reality of a Syrian enrollment about 9-7 B.C.

We must observe that it was possible for any one living in the first or second or third century to discover for himself the facts about any of these early enrollments, if he were willing to take a little trouble and show a little care. Accurate observation, registration and preservation of all facts formed the basis of Roman Imperial administration. We know from Pliny that the facts obtained at every census were so carefully preserved that in 48 A.D. Claudius could verify from the records of earlier numberings the statement, which a citizen of a small Italian town made about his age; and there can be no doubt that similar careful preservation was the rule everywhere, as is proved in Egypt. Abundant material existed on which, the historian who was willing to take trouble could base an accurate narrative of facts. With an author of ordinary ability and care, serious error could hardly arise except from intention to mislead; though, of course, a slip in some unimportant detail may be made by any man, however careful, and probably none are free from them, not even Mommsen himself, whose grasp of detail is so marvelous.

The discrepancy between Tertullian, who seems to connect the birth of Christ with the enrollment of Saturninus, and Luke, who connects that event with the enrollment of Quirinius, will engage our attention in chapter 11. For the moment our purpose is to show that the Egyptian enrollment periods were observed in Syria and elsewhere. But the existence of such a discrepancy is the conclusive proof that Tertullian had good evidence to trust to. He would never have contradicted Luke as regards the name, unless he had obtained the fact on undeniable authority.

In the same year 8 B.C.., in which “enrollments” seem to have been made in Syria and in Egypt, Augustus, as he mentions in his official review of his own life, made a census and found that the total number of Roman citizens in the whole empire was 4,233,000. A similar numbering of Roman citizens had been made by him in 28 B.C.

The fact that Augustus’s first two enumerations show an interval of twenty years forms no argument against our theory of a Fourteen-Years’- Cycle. The first enumeration was made before the plan was initiated, and the second, the initiation of the plan, was fixed according to the epoch of 23 B.C.

At any rate, 8 B.C. was a marked year in the administration of the city of Rome. In that year, Augustus gave Rome a new municipal organization, dividing it into regions and quarters; and in a certain class of Roman city inscriptions, it is reckoned as the year 1 of an epoch which remained in use for a time. It was not an Imperial epoch; it was merely used in dating some documents connected with the new Roman municipal system, and the year I did not agree with the first of the Four-teen-Years’-Cycle, but was taken at, the: first year in which the new municipal system was actually in existence.

The next periodic year was 6 A.D. and the enrollment would, therefore, naturally be taken in the following year, 7 A.D. Quirinius was governor of Syria for the second time in 6 and the following years; and he held “the great census” and valuation of Palestine, as Josephus records. Judea was now incorporated in the empire, administered by a Procurator , and connected with the Province Syria; and a complete set of statistics of the new territory was required as the basis of the Roman organization. “The great enrollment” might, it is true, be plausibly explained as due merely to the necessities of administration in a newly incorporated part of the empire. But it is, at least, an interesting coincidence that it should tally with the beginning of a new Cycle. Moreover, it is practically almost certain that Quirinius made a numbering of the population of Syria in A.D. as we have gathered from the inscription of Aemilius Secundus, previously qouted . The natural inference from the known facts is that two operations, one corresponding to the Egyptian periodic enrollment and one corresponding to the Egyptian annual census and valuation, occurred in Palestine in 7 A.D.; and that the periodic enrollment at least, if not the other also, was made throughout the province of Syria.

The Cycle beginning 6 A.D. seems not to have been observed by Augustus himself in Rome. It is well known that, as he grew old and feeble, his administration became more lax. Possibly, as Luke declares, he intended in 9 B.C. to begin a series of “enrollments” for the empire; but, if he had that intention, the idea was too great for the time and was not fully carried into effect. The administrative machinery of the empire was not as yet sufficiently perfect and smooth-working to be able to carry into regular execution such a great idea; and Augustus postponed the next numbering of Roman citizens, until Tiberius was associated with him in the government, when 4,937,000 Roman citizens were numbered, 14 A.D.

Dion Cassius indeed mentions that in 4 A.D. Augustus made a partial census; but that would be two years too early; and, as Mommsen and others have shown, Dion Cassius’s account of the various numberings made by