t Zockler (art. 'Jesus Christus ' in PRE3) speaks of Ramsay's theory in terms of approval ; Chase speaks of the same theory as having advanced many stages the probability that St. Luke's reference to the enrolment under Quirinius is historical (Super- natural Element in our Lord's earthly Li/e, p. 21) ; while Kenyon (art. 'Papyri' in Hastings' DB, Ext. Vol. 356) speaks of the light which the discovery of the census-records in Egypt has thrown upon the chronology of the NT, although, as he adds. Professor Ramsay's is the only attempt to work out the problem m detail.
pire, yet in this instance such a method would have been too
burdensome and inconvenient; and, further, that it is very
questionable whether such an * enrolment ' according to tribes
and families was practicable,
longer possible to trace _the link of connexion i
ticular tribe ( " ""
nts, it
ome par- ■ family. But with regard to the former of these quite consistent with Ramsay's theory that the sliould have taken a considerable time, and witii regard to the second point we are fortunately able to quote Dalman as to the accuracy with which family registers were kept among the Jews. He points out that the title ' Son of David ' would not have been ascribed to Jesus if it had been believed that He did not satisfy the genealogical conditions implied by the name. The Book of Chronicles, which gives (1 Ch 17) the promise of 2 S 7, revived afresh the idea of the royal destiny of the family of David, and thereby contributed to the preser- vation of the household traditions of descendants of David. Dalman adds, ' Where, in addition to proud recollections, national hopes of the greatest moment were bound up with a particular lineage, those belonging to it would be as unlikely to forget their origin as, in our own day, for instance, the numerous descendants of Muhammad, or the peasant families of Norway who are descended from ancient kings.' And he adds, ' Hence it results that no serious doubts need be offered to the idea of a trustworthy tradition of Davidio descent in the family of Joseph' (Hie WorteJem, i. p. 266).
(3) But Schiirer has by no means come to the end of his arguments. The decisive proof against a census in the time of Herod is this, that Josephus characterizes the census of Ac 537 as something entirely new and unheard of, and that it became on that account the cause of indignation and rebellion.* But admitting these statements of Josephus, what then"? Simply this, that his language is amply justified with reference to the passage mentioned, viz. Ac 6^7. The year a.d. 7, as Josephus has it, did mark a new departure ; the taxing then made was made after the Roman fashion ; it was wholly removed in its method and in its consequences from the earlier enrolment under Herod. It is therefore evident that whilst Josephus might well refer to the revolt under Judas of Galilee as the result of this taxation, there was no reason why he should refer to the enrolment of some ten to fourteen years earUer with which no rebellious excitement was connected.
(4) In his latest edition Schurer is very severe with regard to Ramsay's theory that Quirinius was associated with (Juintilius Varus, the latter being the regular governor of Syria for its internal administration, while the former administered the military resources of the province. This, according to Ramsay, would bring Quirinius to Syria B.C. 7-<3, and the * enrolment ' of Palestine took place at the same time. St. Luke does not say that Quirinius was (jovemor ; he uses a vague word with regard to him, a word which might mean that the ' enrolment ' was made while Quirinius was acting as leader (-hvi/i-it) in Syria ; and it seems quite possible that St. Luke should speak of Quirinius in this way, since he was holding the delegated iyifj-oviot. of the Emperor in his command of the armies of Syria. But Schiirer presses his point, and makes much of the unlikeH- hood that St. Luke would date his census not from the ordinao' governor, but from one who had nothing to do with the taking of the census. Yet it must be remembered that there are un- doubtedly examples of frequent temporary associations of duties in Roman administration, and it is quite possible that Quirinius may have been concerned in the census, as Plummer suggests (art. ' Quirinius' in Hastings' DBiv. 183).t Moreover, it may be fairly urged, as it is in fact by Ramsay, that Quirinius ruled for a shorter time than Varus, and that aa he controlled the foreign relations of the province he furnished the best means of dating {Was Christ bum at Bethlehem? p. 246 ; see also p. 106). But if we once admit that St. Luke's words do not involve the belief thatQuirinius was the actual governor of Syria, the view that Quirinius may have been sentasan extra- ordinary legate to Syria, and as suchhadundertaken the ad- ministration of the census, is well worthy of consideration. This view is mentioned by Schiirer (I.e. p. 640), although only to be rejected. But Ramsay (p. 248) points out that if this sup- position is accepted, it may be observed that Quirinius as the commissioner for Syria and Palestine would be a delegate ex- ercising the emperor's authority, and might rightly be said rj-s^vat/Eiv T^; ^vpiccs. At all events this view offends against no method of Roman procedure (as Schiirer apparently allows), and it may fairly be said to be quite compatible with the language which St. Luke employs.