5. The censm of Qvirinius.— It is one of the great merits of Professor Ramsay's theoiT, that it not only claims credibility for the enrolment of Lk 2- as an historical event, but that it also com- bines with that claim a due recognition of Jewish national prejudices. The word for 'enrolment' (diro7pa(/>77), or its plural, was the word for the periotlic enrolments which beyond all doubt were made in Egypt, ijrobably initiated by Augustus. These enrolments were numberin^s of the people according to households, and had nothing to do with the valuation for purposes of taxation. But H. Holtzmann urges in objection that Egypt is not Syria (Hand-Commentar ziim NT, 1901, p. 316). On the other hand, however, it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that such enrolments would take place in other parts of the empire,* especially under a ruler so systematic as Augustus ; and this probability Ramsay has not forgotten to illustrate. Moreover, as the same writer urges, we have to take into account the delicate and difficult ixjsition of Herod, who was obliged, on the one hand, to carry out the Imperial policy, whilst, on tho othor hand, he was called upon to rule over
stances would he more likely than that Herod would endeavour to give a tribal and family character to the enrolment, in fact, to conduct it
1 rlner (art 'Quirinius' in Encyc. Bibl. iv. 3ff.)
p or two definite, though not conclusive pieces
in to mdicate that this periodical census was not
1 ( t^vpt, but was, in some cases at all events, ex-
BIRTH OF CHRIST
BIRTH OF CHRIST
205
on national lines wliich would haiinonize as far as was possible with Jewish sentiment.* Here prob- ably lies the true distinction between the first enrolment, which was one of a series, and the en- rolment (Ac 6^') which was conducted after the Roman fashion, and became the cause not only of indignation, but of reliellion. Here, too, we have the probable explanation as to why Joseph and the Virgin Mother left their home at Nazareth for Bethlehem. \i the enrolment had been taken on Roman lines, there would have been no motive for the journey, since in that case only a recognition of existin<; political and social facts would have been involved ; but in tlie present instance the Roman method was judiciously modified by the introduction of a numbering not only by house- holds, but by tribes. There is, then, no confusion between this enrolment of Herod's and the subse- quent enrolment of 6-7 A. D., — a confusion that would involve a blunder of some ten years, — as Schmiedel and Pfleiderer maintain ; but, on the contrary, a careful distinction is drawn between them.
Moreover, since the publication of his first book on the subject, Ramsay has collected fresh details to support his thesis, t The year, for instance, which he claims for the first periodic census seems to demand an interval of some two years between it and the earliest date for the Birth of our Lord. This somewhat lengthy interval, which has been urged against the theory, may perhaps be ac- counted for by the situation of affairs in Palestine, which presented at the time considerable difficulty and anxiety. But a fair and contemporary ana- logy, so far as length of time is concerned, may be found in another part of the Roman Empire, and in a much simpler operation than tliat of a census. The kingdom of Paphlagonia was incorporated in the Roman province Galatia ; but although the taking of the oatli of allegiance was, as compared with a census, a matter which required little pre- paration and instruction of oflicials, yet nearly, or perhaps more than, two years elapsed before the oath was actually administered (Expodtor, Nov. 1901, p. 321 tt.).
One of tbe most acute and prominent opponents of St. Luke's accuracy in re<,'ard to tlie question before us is Professor Sciiiirer, who in GJV-' (vol. i. [1901] pp. 608-S43) deals seriatim with the difficulties which, in his opinion, St. Lulte's statement involves.
(1) Schiirer, first of all, points out that history iinowa nothing of a general census of the empire in the time of Augustus But, as Ramsay rightly says, the contrary assertion stands on a very different level of piobabilitv from that which it occupied before the Egyptian discovery. And if there is evidence that the periods of the Ejjyptian enrolments were frequently co- incident with the holding of a census in otiier parts of the empire, we come very near to St. Luke's statement, that Augustus laid down a general principle of taking a census of the whole Roman world.
(2) It is maintained by Schiirer that if St. Luke describes Joseph as travelling to Bethlehem because he was of the house and lineage of David, this presupposes that the lists for the census were prepared according to descent and families, which was by no means the Roman method. But Ramsay's whole contention is that the 'enrolment' in question w£is conducted not according to Roman, but according to Jewish, methods.
' It is urged,' says Schurer, ' that in this census an accommo- dation was made to Jewish customs and prejudice.' But he argues that although this was often the case under the Em-
♦ On this practical method of thus avoiding any outrage upon Jewish national feeling, see, further, B. Weiss, Leien Jem*, i 231. Turner (art. 'Chronology' in Hastings' Z)B i. 404) also pomts out that Herod may well have been mindful of the susceptibilities of the Jews, and so, in avoiding the scandal caused by the later census (Ac 637), avoided also the notice of history.