When we consider the many difficulties which surround this
qufestio, it is somewhat surprising that Prof essor Schiirer
all possible means of escape from the con-
should affirm
* BJ n. viii.
tin this coi
rOQt „ ,_ ,.__ .
holding the office of procurator^ and not by a word signifying legatus, as Quirinius afterwards became in a.d. «. The only other place in which St. Luke uses the word employed in the phrase ' when Quirinius was governor of Syria ' refers to a procurator (Lk 3i), and this fact adds weight to the supposition that, while at the time of the enrolment Varus was actuallv lef/atus, Quirinius may have held some such command as that indicated above. H. Holtzmann (Hdcoin., 1901, i. p. 317) dis- misses Ramsay's proposed explanation somewhat contemptu- ously ; but he has nothing to say with regard to the analogous cases of a temporary division of duties in Roman administra- tion, or to those quoted by R. S. Bour, who is essentially in agreement with Ramsay in the proposed solution.
BIRTH OF CHRIST
BIRTH OF CHRIST
elusion are closed, the conclusion bein^ that St. Luke's state- ment conflicts with the facts of history (.I.e. p. 642). Having arrived at this very dogmatic result, he points out thatanyoni
A'ho cannot attribute s that the Evangelist is i blunders. He confuses, <
-, free f
i Thcudas in Ac 636, the Theudas f Galilee, with the Theudas who forty years later. But Schurer must be well aware that many able critics do not accept this further summary assertion on his part of St. Luke's ignorance, and that his own learned countr.i.-man Dr. F. Blass passes the sensible Judgment in his Commentary on Ac 537, that St. Luke's accuracy in other respects should prevent us from attributing to him here such a grave error as is sometimes alleged. Moreover, it should be remembered that it is precisely in points connected with the administration of the Roman provinces that St. Luke's accuracy has been so repeatedly proved. Consider aa a single instance the manner in which in the Acts he is able not merely to dis- tinguish between Imperial and Senatorial provinces, but also to note accurately the particular period during which a certain province was under one or the other kind of rule. Or if we turn to the Gospel, we recall how a keen controversy has raged around the statement in Lk 31 with regard to Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene. Here, too, St. Luke has been accused of manifest inaccuracy. But, to say nothing of the recent dis- covery of two inscriptions which have been fairly cited in support of St. Luke's correctness, it may be observed that Schmiedel reluctantly allows (art. ' Lysanias ' in Etvcyc. Bibl. iii. ■.iS42) that it cannot possibly be shown, or even assumed, that St. Luke is here mistaken, while Schurer entertains no such hesit.ation, and frankly states that * the Evangelist Luke is thoroughly correct when he assumes that in the fifteenth year of Tiberius there was a Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene ' {I.e. p. 719). And yet within a few lines of this evidence of correct- ness we are asked to believe that the same Evangelist was guilty of a gratuitous and stupid blunder in relation to the enrolment under Quirinius.
ii. St. Matthew's account. — 1. Vse of OT ■prophecy. — While St. Luke narrates the events which lead to the Birth at Bethlehem without making any definite reference to OT jirophecy, it is noticeable that St. Matthew (2*) quotes definitely the prophecy of Micah (5^) with reference to the home of David : ' And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, art in nowise least among the princes of Judah : for out of thee shall come forth a governor, which shall be shepherd of my people Israel.' The jjrophecy was undoubtedly regarded as Messianic (Zahn, Das Evangelium des Mattluius, 1903, p. 94 ; SchUrer, I.e. ii. 527-530).
The difference in the wording of Mt 26 and Mic 52 ia easily accounted for, if we bear in mind that the Evangelist repro- duces the prophecy in the manner popular at the time, i.e. he quotes some Targum on the passage, or, as Edersheim puts it, Mic 5- ia rendered targumically, and this would fairly cover the variations in the two renderings (Jesm the Messiah, i. p. ■206; cf. also Delitzsch, Mesmtniscne Weissarjungeti^^ p. 129). But if Schurer is correct in seeing in the prophecy of Micah words which might easily be understood to mean that the Messiah's goings forth had been from of old, from everlasting. I.e. to signify the Messiah's pre-existence, yet it cannot be said that Jewish theology pointed to a birth such as that recorded by St. Matthew.
'it i? no wonder that Zahn (I.e. p. 83) should characterize as altogether fantastic the attempt to derive the stories of St. Matthew and St. Luke from the Rabbinic exegesis of Is 7^*, when there is no reason to assume that the prophet's words were taken at the time of our Lord's birth to refer to the 'Messiah at all (see also Weber, Jiidische Tlwalo^jie -, i>p. ;j:,4, 357 ; and von Orelli, art. 'Messias' in PRE^, 19U2, and esp. Ualman, Die Worte Jesu, i. 226). But this is a subject for which refer- ence may be made to art. Virgin Birth.
2. Jtelation to Jevnsh legal requirements. — St. Matthew's account, which with every due con- cession may fairly be regarded as dating in its present form within the limits of the 1st cent., demands our attention for further reasons. It is remarkable, for example, how strictly it adheres to Jewish legality, and yet at the same time how delicately the feelings and thoughts of Joseph are portrayed (cf. G. H. Box, I.e. p. 82).