Was Christ Born
at Bethlehem?

ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY PRESS

w

AS CHRIST BORN AT

Bethlehem ? A Study on
the Credibility of St. Luke. By W. M.
Ramsay, m.a., d.c.l. ^ ^^ #

LONDON : HODDER AND
STOUGHTON -f •{¦ 27
PATERNOSTER ROW 1898

2)eOicate&
TO THE MEMORY OF
MY UNCLE
ANDREW MITCHELL

PREFACE
Understanding that a certain criticism im-
pHed a sort of challenge to apply my theory
of Luke's character as a historian to the
Gospel, I took what is generally acknow
ledged to be the most doubtful passage, from
the historian's view, in the New Testament,
Luke ii. 1-4. Many would not even call
it doubtful. Strauss (in his New Life of
Jesus) and Renan dismiss it in a short
footnote as unworthy even of mention in
the text.
This passage, interpreted according to the
view which I have maintained — that Luke
was a great historian, and that he appreci
ated the force of the Greek superlative (in
spite of the contradiction of Professor Blass
and others) — gave the result that Luke was
acquainted with a system of Periodic En
rolments in Syria, and probably in the East

vm PREFACE

generally. I looked for evidence of such
a system ; and it was offered by recent
discoveries in Egypt. The confirmation
afforded to Luke was explained in the
Expositor, April and June, 1897.
Realising better in subsequent thought
the bearings of the Egyptian discovery, I
have enlarged these two articles into an
argument against the view that Luke sinks,
in the accessories of his narrative, below the
standard exacted from ordinary historians.
At the risk of repeating views already
stated in previous works, the second chapter
attempts to put clearly the present state of
the question as regards the two books of
Luke, without expecting others to be
familiar with my views already published.
The names of those scholars whose views
I contend against are hardly ever mentioned.
The scholars of the " destructive " school
seem to prefer not to be mentioned, when
one differs from them. I have learned much
from them ; I was once guided by them ; I
believe that the right understanding of the

PREFACE

New Testament has been very greatly ad
vanced by their laudable determination to
probe and to understand everything, as is
stated on p. 33 ; but I think their con
clusions are to a great extent erroneous.
It might, however, be considered disin
genuous if I concealed that the weighty
authority of Gardthausen, the historian of
Augustus, is dead against me, p. 102.
My best thanks are due to Professor
Paterson, who has discussed many points
and cleared up my views in many ways ;
to Mr. B. P. Grenfell, who read the first
proof of chapter vii., and enabled me to
strengthen it ; and, at last, to Mr. F. G.
Kenyon ; to Mr. A. C. Hunt ; to Mr.
Vernon Bartlett ; and to Mr. A. Souter.
The language of the book has profited
much by my wife's care in revision.
It would be impossible — and only weari
some to the reader if it were possible — to
trace the origin of every thought expressed
in the following pages. Where I was con
scious, at the moment of writing, that I was

PREFACE

using an idea suggested by another, I have
said so ; but as regards the New Testament,
one learns in the course of years so much
from so many sources that one knows not
who is the teacher in each detail.
The relation between the almost identical
solutions of the Quirinius difficulty, pro
posed nearly simultaneously by M. R. S.
Bour and myself, is explained in chapter xi.
W. M. RAMSAY.

Postscript. — I hear, Oct. 2, that Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt
have found a household-enrolment paper a little older than a.d. 50.
The date is lost, but the same ofBcials are mentioned in it as in
a document of the 6th year of [Tiberius], where the names of
Claudius and Caligula are impossible. Hence the paper belongs
to the census of a.d. 20, and proves conclusively my theory as to
the origin of the Periodic Enrolments from Augustus. Much of
the argument in ch. vii., printed when the Periodic Enrolments
were traced with certainty only as far back as a.d. 92, is now
confirmed so completely, that part of it is hardly necessary.

CONTENTS

PART I.— IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM.

PAGE
Chapter I. Luke's History : what it Professes

II. Plan and Unity of Luke's History . 32
III. The Attitude of Luke to the Roman
Empire  49
IV. Importance in Luke's History of the
Story of the Birth of Christ . 73
PART IL— SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM.
Chapter V. The Question at Issue . . -95

xn CONTENTS PAGE
Chapter VI. Luke's Account of the Enrolment . 117
VII. Enrolment by Households in Egypt . 131
VIII. The Syrian Enrolment of the Year
8 B.c  149
IX. The Enrolment of Palestine by Herod
THE King .... . 174
X. Chronology of the Life of Christ . 197
XI. Quirinius the Governor of Syria . 227
PART III.
Chapter XII. Some Associated Questions . 251
APPENDIX.
Specimens of the Documents  271

PART I.
IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM

CHAPTER I.
LUKE'S HISTORY : WHAT IT PROFESSES TO BE.
Among the writings which are collected in the
New Testament, there is included a History of the
life of Christ and of the first steps in the diffusion
of his teaching through the Roman world, com
posed in two books. These two books have been
separated from one another as if they were different
works, and are ordinarily called " The Gospel
according to St. Luke " and " The Acts of the
Apostles ". It is, however, certain from their
language, and It is admitted by every scholar, that
the two books were composed by a single author
as parts of a single historical work on a uniform
plan. After a period of independent existence,
this History in two books was incorporated in the
Canon, and its unity was broken up : the first
(3)

4 LUKE'S HISTORY
book was placed among the group of four Gospels,
and the second was left apart.
Professor Blass has pointed out a trace of this
original independent existence in the famous manu
script which was presented by the Reformer Beza
to the University of Cambridge. In that manu
script the name of John Is spelt In two different
ways, the form Joanes being almost Invariably used
In Luke and Acts, and Joannes In the Gospels of
Matthew, Mark and John.* That slight difference
In orthography leads us back to the time of some
old copyist, who used as his authority a manu
script of the History of St. Luke, In which the
spelling Joanes was employed, and different manu
scripts of the other Gospels containing the spelling
Joannes. Probably the spelling Joanes was that
employed by the original author ; and It Is adopted
in Westcott and Hort's edition throughout the
New Testament, except in Acts Iv. 6 and Rev.
xxii. 8.
This historical work in two books is attributed
by tradition to St. Luke, the companion and pupil
of St. Paul. We are not here concerned with that
* Exceptions — one in Luke, two each in Matthew, Mark and
Acts, seven in John.

WHAT IT PROFESSES TO BE 5
tradition. Since all scholars are agreed that the same
author wrote both books, we shall use the tra
ditional name to Indicate him merely for the sake
of brevity, as it is necessary to have some name by
which to designate the author ; but we shall found
no argument upon the authorship. Like Professor
Blass, I see no reason to doubt the tradition ; but
those who do not accept the tradition may treat
the name Luke in these pages as a mere sign to
Indicate the author, whoever he may be.
The point with which we are here specially con
cerned is the trustworthiness of this author as a
historian. Many facts are recorded by him alone,
and it Is a serious question whether or not they
can be accepted on his sole authority.
This Is a subject on which there prevails a good
deal of misapprehension and even confusion of
thought. There are many who seem to think
that they show fairness of mind by admitting that
Luke has erred in this point or In that, while they
still cling to their belief In other things, which he,
and he alone, records, on the ground that in those
cases there Is no clear evidence against him. But
It must be said that this way of reasoning is really
mistaken and unjustifiable : it refuses to make the

b LUKE'S HISTORY
Inference that necessarily follows from the first
admission. While human nature Is fallible, and any man
may make a slip in some unimportant detail, it Is
absolutely necessary to demand Inexorably from a
real historian accuracy in the essential and critical
facts. We may pardon an occasional instance of
bias or prejudice ; for who is wholly free from it ?
But we cannot pardon any positive blunder In the
really Important points. If a historian is convicted
of error In such a vital point, he ceases to
be trustworthy on his own account ; and every
statement that he makes must gain credit from
testimony external to him, or from general reasons
and arguments, before we accept it. Especially
must this be the case with the ancient historians,
who as a rule hide their authorities and leave us In
the dark as to the reasons and evidence that guided
them to formulate their statements. There may
be — there always are — many facts which the
poorest chronicler records correctly ; but we
accept each of these, not because of the recorder's
accurate and sound judgment In selecting his facts,
but because of other reasons external to him. If
there Is In such a historian any statement that Is

WHAT IT PROFESSES TO BE 7
neither supported nor contradicted by external
evidence, it remains uncertain and is treated as
possibly true, but it shares in the suspicion roused
by the one serious blunder.
If we claim — and I have elsewhere In the
most emphatic terms claimed — a high rank for
Luke as regards trustworthiness, we must look
fairly and squarely at the serious errors that are
charged against him. If the case Is proved against
him In any of these, we must fairly admit the
inevitable inference. If, on the other hand, we
hold that the case Is not proved, it is quite justifi
able and reasonable, in a period of history so
obscure as the first century, to plead, as many
have done, that, while we cannot In the present
dearth of Information solve the difficulty com
pletely, we are obliged, In accordance with our
perception of the high quality of the author's work
as a whole, to accept his statement In certain cases
where he Is entirely uncorroborated. These must
for the present rank among the difficulties of
Luke. There are difficulties in every important
Greek author, and each difficulty is the scholar's
opportunity. But it must be the aim of those who believe

8 LUKE'S HISTORY
In the high character of Luke's History, to dis
cover new evidence which shall remove these
difficulties and justify the controverted statements.
The progress of discovery has recently placed In
our hands the solution of one most serious diffi
culty and the justification of one much controverted
statement ; and the following pages are written
with the intention of showing what Is the bearing
of this discovery on the general question as to the
historical credibility of Luke.
The whole spirit and tone of modern commen
taries on Luke's writings depend on the view
which the commentators take on this question. In
some cases the commentator holds that no historical
statement made by Luke Is to be believed, unless
It can be proved from authorities independent of
him. The commentary on Luke then degenerates
Into a guerilla warfare against him ; the march of
the narrative Is Interrupted at every step by a
series of attacks In detail. Hardly any attempt Is
made to estimate as a whole, or to determine
what is the most favourable Interpretation that can
be placed on any sentence in the work. There Is
a manifest predilection in favour of the interpreta
tion which Is discordant with external facts or

WHAT IT PROFESSES TO BE 9
with other statements In Luke. If It is possible to
read into a sentence a meaning which contradicts
another passage In the same author, that is at once
assumed to be the one intended by him ; and his
incapacity and untrustworthiness are illustrated In
the commentary.
But no work of literature could stand being
treated after this fashion. Imagine the greatest
of pagan authors commented on In such a way ;
any slip of expression exaggerated or distorted ;
sentences strained Into contradiction with other
passages of the same or other authors ; the com
mentary directed to magnify every fault, real
or imaginary, but remaining silent about every
excellence. There have occasionally been such
commentaries written about great classical authors ;
and they have always been condemned by the
general consent of scholars. Even where the bias
of the commentator was due to a not altogether
unhealthy revolt against general over-estimate of
the author under discussion, the world of scholar
ship has always recognised that the criticism which
looks only for faults Is useless, misleading, unpro
gressive, and that it defeats Itself, when it tries to
cure an evil by a much greater evil. Scholarship

10 LUKE'S HISTORY
and learning sacrifice their vitality, and lose all that
justifies their existence, when they cease to be fair
and condescend to a policy of " malignity ".
In this discussion It is obviously necessary to
^conduct the investigation as one of pure history,
to apply to it the same canons of criticism and
interpretation that are employed in the study of
the other ancient historians, and to regard as our
subject, not " the Gospel according to St. Luke,"
but the History composed by Luke. The former
name Is apt to suggest prepossession and prejudice ;
the latter Is purely critical and dispassionate.
In estimating the character and qualities of an
author we must look first of all to his opportunities.
Had he good means of reaching the truth, or was
his attempt to attain thorough knowledge of the
facts made In the face of great difficulties ? An
historian ought to give us a statement of his own
claims to be received as trustworthy, or an estimate
of the character of the evidence which he had at
his disposal.
Luke has not failed to put clearly before his
readers what character he claims for his history.
He has given us. In the prefatory paragraph of his
Gospel, a clear statement of the intention with

WHAT IT PROFESSES TO BE 11
which he wrote his history, and of the qualifica
tions which give him the right to be accepted as
an authority. He was not an eye-witness of the
remarkable events which he is proceeding to
record, but was one of the second generation to
whom the Information had been communicated by
those " who were from the beginning eye-witnesses
and ministers of the word ". The simplest inter
pretation of his words is that he claims to have
received much of his information from the mouths
of eye-witnesses ; and, on careful study of the
preface as a whole, it seems Impossible to avoid the
conclusion that he deliberately makes this claim.
Any other interpretation, though It might be
placed on one clause by Itself, Is negatived by the
drift of the paragraph as a whole.
Thus Luke claims to have had access to autho
rities of the first rank, persons who had seen and
heard and acted in the events which he records.
He makes no distinction as to parts of his narrative.
He claims the very highest authority for It as a whole. -
In the second place, Luke claims to have studied
and comprehended every event In Its origin and
development,* i.e., to have Investigated the pre-
* 'irapr}Ko\ov6if]K6TL dvcodev irafriv dKpi^ws.

12 LUKE'S HISTORY
limlnary circumstances, the genesis and growth of
what he writes about. Exactness and definlteness
of detail In his nan-atlve — these are Implied in the
word oKptfiCjg : Investigation and personal study —
implied In the word ¦n-aprjKoXovdriKOTi : tracing of
events from their causes and origin — implied in
avuOtv : such are the qualities which Luke declares
to be his justification for writing a narrative, when
many other narratives already were in existence ;
and he says emphatically that this applies to all
that he narrates.
The expression used clearly implies that Luke
began to write his narrative, because he was already
In possession of the knowledge gained by study
and Investigation ; as he begins, he Is In the position
of one who already has acquired the Information
needed for his purpose. This Is Implied In the
perfect ¦TrapnKoXovOriKOTi. The rendering in the
Authorised and the Revised Version does not bring
this out quite clearly : from the English words —
" it seemed good to me also, having traced the
course of all things accurately from the first,* to
write unto thee In order " — one might infer that
the study and tracing of the course of events was
* Better " from their origin ".

WHAT IT PROFESSES TO BE 13
resolved upon with the view of writing the history.
But in the Greek that meaning would require the
aorlst participle. With the perfect participle the
meaning must be " as I already possess the know
ledge, It seemed good to me, like the others, to
write a formal narrative for your use ".
On this point, I am glad to find myself In
agreement with Professor Sanday, who refuses to as
sume that Luke " began with the Intention of
writing a history, and accumulated materials
deliberately in view of this intention all through
his career ". We cannot assume that, for the
author, by implication, denies It. But we may
safely assume that he had both the Intelligent
curiosity of an educated* Greek, and the eager
desire for knowledge about the facts of the
Saviour's life, natural in a believer who rested his
faith and his hopes on the life and death of Christ.
Possibly some one may say that it is assuming
too much when I speak of the author as an
" educated " Greek. But any one who knows
Greek can gather that from the preface alone. No
one who had not real education and feeling for
style could have written that sentence, so well-
* Expositor, Feb., 1896, p. 90,

14 LUKE'S HISTORY
balanced, expressed In such delicately chosen terms,
so concise, and so full of meaning.
In the third place, Luke declares his intention
to give a comprehensive narrative of the events in
order from first to last.* This does not neces
sarily imply a chronological order but a rational
order, making things comprehensible, omitting
nothing that Is essential for full and proper under
standing. In a narrative so arranged it stands to
reason that, in general, the order will be chrono
logical, though of course the order of logical ex
position sometimes overrides simple chronological
sequence (see chapter x.). Further, it is Involved
in the idea of a well-arranged History that the
scale on which each event is narrated should be
according to Its importance In the general plan.
Finally the account which Luke gives Is, as he
emphatically declares, trustworthy and certain. f
His expression indubitably Implies that he was
not entirely satisfied with the existing narratives.
He does not, it is true, say that explicitly ; he
utters no word of criticism on his predecessors,
and he declares that they got their Information
from eye-witnesses. But his expression distinctly

WHAT IT PROFESSES TO BE 15
implies that he considered that some advance was
still to be made, either as regards completeness, or
as regards orderly exposition of the facts, or as
regards accuracy. In all probability the fault In
the existing narratives which Luke had especially
in mind was their incompleteness. They embodied
the tradition of eye-witnesses and ministers of the
Word " from the beginning," * which seems to
Imply " the beginning of the preaching of the
Word ". We have to think of narratives in the
form of the Gospel of Mark, with the opening :
" the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ " —
narratives that commence with some such stage as
the baptism. In contrast to these narratives Luke
claims to trace the whole series of events from
their origin, i.e., from the higher or preliminary
stage out of which they were derived. t
It seems beyond doubt that, in speaking of the
origin, Luke has in view the narrative which he
proceeds to give of the birth and early days of the
Saviour. Therein lay the most serious addition
that he made to the narratives of his predecessors ;
and for that addition in particular he claims the
same high character as for the narrative as a whole :
* air' apxfis. t (trcuflef.

16 LUKE'S HISTORY
he has It from first-class authorities — exact, com
plete and trustworthy (see chapter Iv.).
In view of the emphatic claim which Luke
makes, that his whole narrative rests on the highest
authority and Is accurate and certain. It Is obvious
that we cannot agree with the attitude of those
scholars, who, while accepting this whole History
as the work of the real St. Luke, the follower
and disciple and physician and Intimate friend
of Paul, are wont to write about the Inadequacy
of his authorities, the incompleteness of his infor
mation, the puzzling variation In the scale and
character of his narrative according as he had good
or Inferior authorities to trust to. The writer of
the preface would not admit that view : he claims
to state throughout what is perfectly trustworthy.
It may be allowed, consistently with his own
claim, that his information was not everywhere
equally good and complete. Thus, for example,
he would naturally have heard much more about
the facts of the Saviour's life, than about the events
of the few years that followed upon his death :
attention would be concentrated on the former,
and the latter would be much less thought about
or inquired Into. But this view cannot be carried

WHAT IT PROFESSES TO BE 17
far without coming into contradiction with the pro
fession of the preface. And, above all, those who
admit that the Luke of the Epistles, the friend
and companion of Paul, was the author of this
History must not attempt to explain the account
given by Luke of important events in Paul's life,
such as the Apostolic Council (Acts xv.), by the
supposition that the author was not acquainted
with Paul's account of the facts and character of
that most critical event. He who had been Paul's
companion during the stormy years following that
Council, when Its decision was the subject of keen
debate and rival Interpretations, must have known
what were Paul's views on the subject.
It Is Important to note that Luke in this preface
distinguishes between the written accounts and the
tradition of the eye-witnesses.* So far as the
actual word tradition, or Paradosis, goes, it might,
and in many cases does, refer to written narrative ;
but in the present case the logic of the passage
clearly implies a pointed distinction between
tradition and written narrative. There existed
when Luke wrote, on the one hand, oral tradition
from eye-witnesses, and, on the other hand, many
"^ KaBiits irapeBoffay ot avrSnTai.
2

18 LUKE'S HISTORY
narratives written by those who learned from the
eye-witnesses and put the tradition in literary
form ; but there were as yet no written narratives
composed by eye-witnesses. This Inference is
drawn by Professor Blass, and is distinctly implied
In Luke's preface. Luke may have known Mark's
Gospel, and probably used it ; but he did not
know the other two Gospels.
!.».' There can only be one conclusion, when the
terms of Luke's preface are duly weighed. Either
an author who begins with a declaration such as
Ithat had mixed freely with many of the eye-
i witnesses and actors in the events which he
proceeds to record, or he Is a thorough Impostor,
who consciously and deliberately aims at producing
belief in his exceptional qualifications in order to
gain credit for his History. The motive for such
an imposture could hardly be mere empty desire to
be considered a true narrator. The man of that age,
who was deliberately outraging truth, felt no such
overpowering passion for the distinction of having
attained abstract truth In history. He must have
sought to put on the semblance of truth and
authority In order to gain some end by conciliating
belief in his narrative ; he must have desired to

WHAT IT PROFESSES TO BE 19
gain credit in order that his party or his opinions
might triumph. They who declare that the
author belonged to a later age are bound to
prove that there was some such Intention in his
mind. Hitherto every attempt to show that the histo
rian had such an aim In view has ended in complete
failure. With regard to Book I., the Gospel, the
attempt is ludicrous ; the narrative Is so trans
parently simple and natural that hardly any amount
of prepossession could read Into It such aims.
With Book II., the Acts, we are not here con
cerned. Elsewhere I have tried to show what a
single eye the author has in that book to the
simple statement of facts as they actually happened ;
it seems to me to be almost as transparently simple
and natural as the Gospel.
No rational theory, such as would for a moment
be admitted in regard to an ordinary classical
author, has ever been advanced to account for the
supposition of deliberate Imposture in the claims to
credit advanced by Luke. If the author was an
impostor, his work remains one of the most incom
prehensible and unintelligible facts in literary
history. One can imagine, for example, that

20 LUKE'S HISTORY
2 Peter was written by a person who was so filled
with the conviction that he was giving the views
of his master, Peter the Apostle, as to express the
letter In Peter's name ; the case might seem to
him (from a mistaken point of view) to be not
wholly unlike the expression of the old prophets,
" thus saith the Lord ". That Is a conceivable
and rational hypothesis, though whether it be true
or false we cannot say, and need not now inquire.
No such rational hypothesis has yet been advanced
to account for Luke's far more elaborate, and
therefore more deliberate, Imposture.
But this abstract and rather Intangible argu
ment must yield to the demonstration of hard
facts. So much we freely grant. Now It is
asserted that the historian whom we are studying
has been guilty of such serious and gross blunders,
when he touches on matters of general history,
that his Information cannot have been so good as
he pretends, and therefore he must be claiming too
much when he arrogates such an authoritative
character for his History. We shall feel bound to
accept that argument ; and. If the blunders are
demonstrated, we must accept the necessary in
ferences and abandon our championship of his

WHAT IT PROFESSES TO BE 21
accuracy and trustworthiness. But let us first
examine the demonstration.
We cannot investigate In this volume every
" blunder " that is charged against Luke ; but we
shall treat one rather fuUy. If I may judge both
from personal feeling, from conversation, and from
many books, the " blunder " which most con
tributes to rouse prejudice against him as an
historian, occurs at the very beginning, in that same
episode on which he evidently lays such stress in
his preface — the story of the Birth of Christ. In
this story the enrolment or census of Palestine In
the time of Quirinius is a critical point ; and the
doubt whether any such census as Luke describes
was made, is the cause of important and far-reaching
results. It is declared to be a blunder, or rather
a complication of blunders ; and If that be so, the
entire story must be relegated to the realm of
mythology, and the writer who mistakes fable for
fact, and tries to prop up his mistake by an error
of the grossest kind, can retain no credit as an
historical authority.
In conclusion, we shall briefly refer to one or
two other typical so-called " errors " In Luke.

22 THE DESIGN AND UNITY

CHAPTER II.
THE DESIGN AND UNITY OF LUKE'S HISTORY.
As has been stated (p. 6), a historian may make
a slip In some detail without losing claim to be
trustworthy : no man and no historian is perfect.
But he must not found his reasoning upon the
error. Facts that are fundamental In his argument
must be free from slip or fault. There must be
no mistake on a critical point.
If we consider Luke's design, we shall see that
the " error " which forms our subject affects the
very life-blood of the work and the atmosphere In
which the story moves. But every great work
of literature like Luke's History must be reinter
preted by each new age for itself ; and It Is rriore
useful to describe what views are now held as to
the plan and design of that History, than to sketch
the design.
The consummate literary skill shown In Luke's
work must Impress every reader, who allows I'ree

OF LUKE'S HISTORY 23
play to his sense of literary effect. We feel that
in this work we have to deal with an author who
handles his materials freely and with perfect mas
tery. The unity of style and treatment In the
narrative, Its dramatic character, varying according
to the country and the action and the character of
every speaker, so Greek In Athens, so " provincial"
in the Roman colonies Lystra and Phillppi, so
Hebraic in Galilee or by the Jordan, and so Lukan
everywhere — this character and individuality,
shown in numberless ways, make It clear that the
author was no clipper-up of fragments from other
writers, no mere sclssors-and-paste editor of scraps,
no mere second-hand composer, dependent on the
accidental character of his " sources," according to
the elaborate and somewhat pedantic theories that
have been fashionable recently in Germany, but
are already becoming discredited there. Only a
person who has blinded himself to literary feeling
by the strength of a fixed prejudice, could fail to
perceive the literary quality of this History, and to
Infer from it the real unity of the work.
When a commentator on the text of Luke, ob
serving that Luke " can be as Hebraistic as the
Septuagint and as free from Hebraisms as Plutarch,"

24 THE DESIGN AND UNITY
and that " he is Hebraistic in describing Hebrew
society," and Greek in describing Greek society,
refrains from expressing any opinion as to
whether this result is attained " intentionally or
not," that is a very proper reserve for a com
mentator to maintain. He is not called upon to
determine in the preface to a commentary whether
this varying character has been given Intentionally
to the work by its author, or has remained attached
to it by chance, according as the character of the
different documents on which Luke depended con
tinued to exist in his completed work. But the
literary judgment will not hesitate. Luke is so
completely master of his materials, and handles the
Greek language with such ease and power, that he
must have intended to give his work the literary
qualities which are observable in it. A rational
criticism must always assume that an author in
tended to attain that delicately graduated effect
which In fact he has attained.
But the interval which separated the historian
from the events which he records Is an important
element in estimating his design. Great literary
power may tell against his trustworthiness, by
helping him to hide the poverty of his materials ;

OF LUKE'S HISTORY 25
and that view has been maintained as regards
Luke by writers of the type of Baur, Zeller and
Renan. They argued that Luke was an able and
beautiful but not very well-informed author, who
lived long after the events which he records, at a
time when all actors In those events had died, and
when accurate knowledge of facts was difficult to
acquire. In addition to the skilful arguments by
which they showed up a series of Internal dis
crepancies and Improbabilities, the apparent dis
cordance between the narrative (especially In the
second book) and the general scheme and character
of Roman Imperial administration in the Eastern
provinces, seemed to many to weigh heavily against
the Idea that the book embodied a really trust
worthy account of events.
In the picture of Christian history during the
first century, according to the accepted interpreta
tion of Luke's History, there was no apparent
relation between the development of Christian
influence and the existing facts of the Roman
empire. The modern writers who professed to
found their views upon Luke, after a few pictur
esque paragraphs about Roman proconsuls and
armies and the march of the Roman eagles, plunged

26 THE DESIGN AND UNITY
Into Christian history, and the reader saw nothing
more of Rome except when a Galllo or a Serglus
PauUus obtruded himself on the scene with some
thing of the air of a bad actor equipped in ill-fitting
Roman dress. The life of the empire was wanting :
that consisted, not in eagles and proconsuls, but
in order and organisation, and In the development
and Romanlsation of society.
Those who studied Roman history first of all,
and Christian history only In a secondary degree,
were Inevitably driven to the conclusion that a
work, upon which was founded such a lifeless
and spiritless picture of part of the Roman world
in the first century, could not be a product of that
century, but must have originated at a later date,
when the life of the time described was no longer
understood. But a most Important part of Luke's Second
Book Is concerned with Asia Minor and Greece ;
and any one who has gone through the long, slow
process by which in recent years the lost history
of Asia Minor has been In some degree recreated
by the work of a number of scholars, and then
studies Luke without prepossession, must observe
that his references to those lands have a marked

OF LUKE'S HISTORY 27
and peculiar individuality — a certain matter-of-
fact tone — which is utterly unlike the vague style
of a later author, narrating the events of a past age
with the purpose of showing their bearing on the
questions of his own day. One feels that. In all
that concerns Asia Minor, Luke Is treating real
facts with thorough knowledge.
As knowledge of Asia Minor grew, one per
ceived that Luke's statements explained some most
obscure problems by setting In a new light the
evidence that had long seemed unintelligible. Luke
takes us right Into the midst of the political
development of central Asia Minor, when Roman
organising skill was treating one by one the succes
sive problems of government amid a semi-Oriental
population, regarding some districts as still too rude
to be Romanised, and placing them under the
educative care of dependent kings, treating others
as already worthy of the honour of being Incor
porated In the Roman empire as fractions of
a great province, and fostering among them a
spirit of pride In the Imperial connection and
contempt for the extra-provincial barbarians.
It is a difficult thing to revivify and rearrange
the details of that magnificent political work ; and

28 THE DESIGN AND UNITY
In some respects I erred In my first attempt * to
recreate the picture of the Imperial scheme for
Romanising the Inner lands by gradually building
them up Into a great Roman province called
Galatla. But the errors (though vexatious to
myself as I gradually came to see more clearly)
were not so Important as to disturb materially the
truth of the picture In Its general effect. It had
been given me, through Intense longing after
truth, to catch the main outlines correctly, and to
understand that Luke's brief references to the
state of central Asia Minor plunged the reader
Into the heart of the conflict between Grasco-
Roman forms of life and the amorphous barbarism
of a Phrygian and Lycaonlan population. In that
state of the land, to be Phrygian or Lycaonlan was
to be unenlightened and non-Roman, to be Roman
was to be a loyal member of the province Galatla.
Such a state of things could not have been
conceived or understood by a writer of the second
century, when Rome had long been supreme over
the whole of Asia Minor, and when the opposition
between the contending Ideas, Roman or Galatic
on the one hand, native {i.e., Phrygian, PIsIdian,
* The Church in the Rotiiati Empire, Pt. I,

OF LUKE'S HISTORY 29
etc.) and non-Roman on the other, had ceased to
be a real force in the country.
But If this view which opened gradually before
us was correct, then we had to abandon the current,
generally accepted opinion, which admitted no
Roman conceptions In the terms relating to geo
graphy and political classification in Acts, which
saw, for example, in the " Galatic Territory,"
not a Roman province, but the country where
Attains, King of Pergamos, had confined the
Galatas or Galll about 230 b.c. We must regard
Paul as a Roman, using Roman terms and forms,
just as he accepted the Roman classification and
system of administration.
As it happened, this Implied and necessitated a
radical revolution in the Interpretation of the book
of Acts and of early Christian history as a whole.
It meant that the connection and the conflict
between Christianity and the Roman State did not
begin In the second century, as was the almost
unanimous opinion of the greatest authorities
during the half-century preceding 1890 (when
Neumann's book carried back the beginning to
the reign of Domitian, a.d. 81-96). It meant
that the conscious and recognised relations be-

30 THE DESIGN AND UNITY
tween the New Religion and the Roman Adminis
tration began when Barnabas and Saul stood before
the Roman proconsul of Cyprus, when the latter,
hitherto junior and subordinate to Barnabas, took
the lead, and the supposed Hebrew wise man
named Saul stood forth as the Greek Paul * and
Impressed the Roman governor by declaring the
principles of the new Catholic, world-wide religion.
It meant that the first Important step In the spread
ing of this Catholic religion was made, when Paul
and Barnabas crossed Taurus from the secluded
and unimportant Province Pamphylla, Into the im
portant Province Galatla — the province which
embodied all that was Roman In Central Asia
Minor, the province In which the Roman element
was involved in the sharpest antagonism to the
rude ignorance of an Oriental, priest-guided, ritual-
loving native population — and planted their feet
on the great highway of Intercourse between the
East and the West.
Further, it now began to grow clear that some
of the discrepancies which had been the mainstay
of Baur's and Zeller's argument, were due to
the stereotyped misunderstanding of the Roman
* See p. 53.

OF LUKE'S HISTORY 31
side of early Christian history. Both the general
character and many details of that history were
distorted, when contemplated through the medium
of the dominant theory.
The life of the early Church lay in constant
intercommunication between all its parts ; its health
and growth were dependent on the free circulation
of the life-blood of common thought and feeling.
Hence It was first firmly seated on the great lines
of communication across the empire, leading from
its origin In Jerusalem to Its imperial centre In
Rome. It had already struck root In Rome within
little more than twenty years after the crucifixion,
and it had become really strong in the great city
about thirty years after the apostles began to look
round and out from Jerusalem. This marvellous
development was possible only because the seed of
the new thought floated free on the main currents
of communication, which were ever sweeping back
and forward between the heart of the empire and
Its outlying members. Paul, who mainly directed
the great movement, threw himself boldly and
confidently into the life of the time ; he took the
empire as it was, accepted its political conforma
tion and arrangement, and sought only to touch

32 THE DESIGN AND UNITY
the spiritual and moral life of the people, while he
always advised them to obey the existing Govern
ment and conform to the existing laws of the State
and of society, so far as they did not lead Into
direct conflict with Christian principles.
But the formerly accepted Interpretation of the
Second Book of Luke's History carried Christianity
away Into eddies and backwaters of the ocean of
Roman Imperial development, and placed there the
scene of the first great conflict between Judalstic pro
vincialism and the world-wide Pauline conception
of Christianity. It was blind to the true character
of Paul's work, which sought to spiritualise the
life and educative development of the empire by
affecting the main currents of Its circulation and
Intercommunication ; and it tried to distinguish the
lines along which the new thought spread from
the lines along which the life of the world was
throbbing. The dominance of that interpretation produced
a position, the analogue of which still exists In
respect of some other questions. That theory led
straight into a series of difficulties, for which no
rationally satisfying solution could be found ;
and the scholars who treated Luke's History

OF LUKE'S HISTORY 33
were divided broadly into two classes. Some saw
so clearly the unity, the power and the personal
quality In the work, that they refused to be led
astray by the serious difficulties in which they were
Involved on certain points. Others realised so
strongly the difficulties, that they formed their
judgment from them alone and Ignored the quality
of the History as a whole.
The progress of discovery is indubitably tending
to show that the scholars of the former class were,
on the whole. In the right ; but this should not
blind us to the Immense service rendered by those
of the other class, who kept the difficulties clear
before the world's consciousness.
Moreover, It must be admitted that the scholars
who judged by literary feeling and the general
quality of Luke's History, were not always wise In
their treatment of the difficulties. Instead of
frankly acknowledging that the difficulties were
inexplicable In our present state of knowledge,
they sometimes attempted by Ingenious special
pleading to minimise them, and then claimed that
the difficulties were solved. Their vigorous per
ception of the central and most important fact, viz.,
the first-hand directness of Luke's style, made

34 THE DESIGN AND UNITY
them so thoroughly convinced that the difficulties
must be explicable, that they were almost blinded
to the strength of the arguments against them, and
sometimes thought they had explained difficulties,
when they had merely shut their eyes to them.
The result was that those who, like myself, had
been accustomed only to classical Greek, and were
too young to appreciate fully the literary quality
of a writer In such an unfamiliar form of Greek,
and who were determined to understand clearly
and precisely every step In reasoning, were repelled
by what seemed to us to be pure prejudice and
unwillingness to admit reason, and were driven
violently over to the opposite side ; and It was a
long and slow process to work back again to the
side against which we had acquired such a strong
prepossession. In such a state of mind It was natural to rest for
a time In a theory of double authorship, that
Luke's History was partly excellent and partly
second-rate (as I was almost Inclined to do while
writing The Church in the Roman Empire). One
could feel that Luke's Second Book was charac
terised by such singular accuracy In all details
bearing on the society and the political organisation

OF LUKE'S HISTORY 35
of the Eastern provinces, that the author's expres
sion in many places could not have been framed
without first-hand knowledge, and that his point
of view was distinctly of the first century, or
rather the pre-DomltianIc type, as distinguished
from that which was produced by the persecution
of Domitian.
But, on the other hand, parts of the History
seemed to Involve insoluble difficulties and dis
crepancies. Hence, while no distinct theory was stated In
my treatise, yet the language used in It sometimes
pointed towards a theory of dual authorship.
But such Ideas were utterly Inconsistent with
the unity of plan, the vigorous controlling Intellect
which revealed Itself throughout Luke's work ;
and the impossibility to stand still in such a half
way position, clinging to rival and Inconsistent
views, became rapidly manifest. It was not
possible to introduce maturer views into the book
already published, even in a new edition ; for the
sole merit that It possessed lay In its being perfectly
unprejudiced and unfettered by any theory as to
the composition of Luke's History. After forming
a definite opinion about that History as a whole. It

36 THE DESIGN AND UNITY
was no longer possible to write as if one had no
opinion. Therefore, the book had to remain as it
was, with its defect of being not self-consistent
In respect of Luke, since the want of systematic
unity was the guarantee of Its being the unpre
judiced effort of a mind groping for truth.
It became more and more clear that It is impos
sible to divide Luke's History into parts, attribut
ing to one portion the highest authority as the
first-hand narrative of a competent and original
authority, while regarding the rest as of quite
inferior mould. If the author of one part is the
real Luke, or any other person standing in similar
close relations with the circle surrounding the
apostles (particularly Paul), then that same person
must be the author of the whole, and must have
brought to bear on his whole work the same
qualities which made one part so excellent. It
may be that he found It more difficult to feel per
fectly at home In the Palestinian part of his nar
rative than where the scene lies In the i^gean lands.
It may be that in the parts intervening between
the Resurrection or the Ascension (with which
many, probably all, of his written authorities ended)
and the beginning of Paul's personal recollections.

OF LUKE'S HISTORY 37
he found It harder to obtain perfectly satisfactory
knowledge. But we cannot lay much stress on
these causes of diversity in character. The History
must stand as a whole, and be judged as a whole.
If one part shows striking historical excellence, so
must all ; If any part shows a conspicuous historical
blunder, we must be very suspicious of a theory
which attributes surpassing qualities to another
part. In regard to the Second Book of Luke, my
arguments are set forth elsewhere,* and, while I
feel conscious how Imperfectly they have been
stated, and how much better the work ought to
have been done, I have nothing of consequence
either to retract or to modify, though much might
be added. After three years more of study, Luke
appears more clearly than ever to me as one of the
great historians.
Such a view Is unfashionable ; and there is In
some quarters a disposition to regard It even as a
crime and a personal affront to the distinguished
scholars who have thought differently. It Is true
that I have advocated a view diametrically opposed
* Both in the pages of the Expositor in many separate articles,
and in St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen.

38 THE DESIGN AND UNITY
to their judgment, and that, If I be right, they
have erred In a critical question of the utmost Im
portance and Interest. But I have not sought to
give the discussion this personal application. It
Is not a crime to differ from another scholar as to
the date and quality of any of the disputed classical
works ; and my desire has been to proceed in re
gard to Luke on the same lines as in the questions
of extra-Biblical scholarship. One of the scholars
whom I reverence most deeply In all Europe differs
very strongly from my judgment as to the authority
of the Peutinger Table, but the difference makes no
change in my profound respect and admiration for
him, and none in the great kindness which he has
always shown to a beginner like me. Similarly
there Is no reason why Luke's authority as a his
torian should not be treated as a justifiable subject
for discussion. I entertain, and have always pro
fessed, great admiration for many scholars whose
opinions I dispute on some points of Christian
history, and from their learning I have gained
much. It is a more serious evil that a disposition Is
sometimes shown to terrorise the investigator by
the array of learned opinion on the opposite side,

OF LUKE'S HISTORY 39
and to treat it as the necessary mark of a reason
able scholar in this subject, that he should be always
searching for and finding proofs of the late date,
and inaccuracy, and composite character of Luke's
History. It is comforting to certain minds to have
some one whose opinions they can accept implicitly ;
and it would almost appear that a few of our Eng
lish scholars attribute to the German commentators
on the Bible that inerrancy which our parents or
grandparents attributed to the text. They set up
an Idol, and condemn as an Impious Iconoclast him
that sees the Idol's feet of clay, even while he
reverences the image.
But In matters of scholarship it is not safe to
follow implicitly any scholar, however great he
may be ; and we appeal to fact and reason against
the dogmatism which seeks to close the case, refuses
to admit further argument, and brands as an
"apologist" any defender of Luke's character as
a historian. Not long ago it was reckoned by many as essential
to a respectable scholar that he should pooh-pooh
Luke as a second-century writer. Now we are
permitted, on the highest German authority, to
date him in the first century. We are permitted

40 THE DESIGN AND UNITY
also to speak of certain parts and scenes in the
Second Book of his History as showing marvellous
accuracy and great power of conceiving and setting
before the reader a life-like picture of what actually
occurred. But we are not permitted to Infer that
he is a trustworthy historian, and that the pre
sumption Is In favour of his accuracy, even in cases
where no clear external evidence corroborates his
statements. We might ask whether It Is a probable or
possible view that the author can be so unequal to
himself, that In one place he can show very high
qualities as an accurate historian, and that In
another place, when dealing with events equally
within the range of his opportunities for acquiring
knowledge, he can prove himself Incompetent to
distinguish between good and bad, true and false.
He that shows the historic faculty in part of his
work has It as a permanent possession.
The power of vivid conception and accurate
description In concise, well-chosen, pregnant lan
guage, which Luke admittedly shows In some
passages, proves that he could estimate correctly
the comparative importance of details, select the
essential points, and skilfully group them. An

OF LUKE'S HISTORY 41
author fixes a standard for himself at his best, and
is most unlikely to sink below it. The true critic
will recognise this, and will not rest satisfied till he
has traced the same qualities throughout the work.
That method of studying Luke has not yet been
consistently employed In the light of modern
historical, geographical and antiquarian knowledge.
The attempt to carry it out consistently will be
stigmatised by those who dislike its results as
pedantic Insistence on minute points of language
and mere " MIkrologle " ; but It must be made In
the face of such prohibition.
On this subject there are only two alternatives.
It grows more and more clear that compromise
— such as Is common among those by whom
It is esteemed fair-minded to accept as much
as possible from the results of the destructive
school — is impossible. The mind that Is really
logical and self-consistent cannot admit part of the
so-called " critical " view — what ought to be called
the uncritical view — and yet on the whole cling
to the belief in real Lukan authorship. Luke's
History is of such a strongly marked character —
what are called the "gaps" or omissions in It are
so distinct, or, In other words, the proportion of

42 THE DESIGN AND UNITY
the parts In It is so peculiar — the Insistence upon
some facts and the summary dismissal of others
with a bare word forms so prominent a feature of
the work — that either the author had a distinct Idea
of plan and purpose and comparative importance,
according to which his whole narrative was ordered
and guided, or he was not the real St. Luke.
Occasionally It is possible, with some plausible
and deceptive show of reason, to maintain that the
length at which some Incident Is narrated Is due
merely to the author's possessing exceptionally good
sources of Information about It. Take for example,
the long description of the voyage from Phillppi
to Cassarela. That description Is given In the
words of one who was present on the ships. It
therefore rests on authority of the highest char
acter ; and it might plausibly be maintained that the
exceptionally excellent nature of the Information
led the author to devote an exceptional amount of
space to it.
But If a believer in the Lukan authorship of the
History attempts In a consistent way to carry out
that theory, he Is led Into hopeless contradiction.
Situations at which the real St. Luke must have
been present are dismissed In the curtest way or

OF LUKE'S HISTORY 43
omitted altogether, while others In which he was
not present are described at great length. If the
author so carefully chronicles the progress past
Chios, and Samos, and Cos, and Rhodes, and
Myra, and Cyprus, for the sole reason that he was
present and knew what happened, why should he,
after describing so carefully and minutely the
progress of the Gospel In Corinth and Ephesus, or
its comparative failure in Athens, which he had
not seen, sum up In a word the two years In Rome,
where he was present — years which must have been
so full of important events and Impressive preach
ing .'' Why should he omit the two years' resi
dence in Cfesareia, except as regards two Isolated
scenes, and describe so much more fully the pre
vious twelve days' residence there ? Why should
events in which St. Paul and St. Lulie were both
keenly Interested, and as to which they must have
known each other's views — why should such events
be narrated at great length by Luke, and in a way
which shows, on the accepted Interpretation, utter
Ignorance of Paul's views ? *
No answer has ever been given to these questions.
In truth, he who admits that theory must, If he Is
* See p. 17,

44 THE DESIGN AND UNITY
logical, go on, like Professor Harnack and Pro
fessor McGIffert, to deny that the real St. Luke
was the author.
But it is at once the special strength and the
peculiar weakness of English scholarship that, even
when It makes a mistake, it shrinks with a healthy
and saving Instinct from carrying out the mistake
to extremes ; It Is not consistent with itself where
to be consistent means to go further astray.
With its practical sense it gains the chief result —
truth in the main. It returns to the right path
when its course is becoming clearly divergent ; and
often It returns before it has erred so far from the
true path as to become completely conscious of Its
wandering. Hence, it disapprovingly regards him
that remonstrates with it for its want of consistency,
on the ground that " he hunts down the statements
of his opponents Into what seem to him to be
their consequences". In this country we are, per
haps, too apt to think that a scholar is responsible
only for what he has explicitly stated, and not for
the logical consequences of his views.
On the other hand. It is at once the strength
and the weakness of German scholarship that it Is
thoroughly and remorselessly logical, that It carries

OF LUKE'S HISTORY 45
out Its views with steadfast and unwavering con
sistency, that it works out every theory to its
consequences, that it is always conscious where
It has gone, and is never untrue to itself, even
though it thereby sacrifices the real object of its
pursuit. When it goes wrong It demonstrates Its
own error with absolute conclusiveness, for it never
works round out of the straight line back towards
the true path.
A good example of the attempt at compromise
and of the illogicality of such an attempt. Is found
In the main subject of our investigation — Luke's
story of the birth of Christ and the first enrol
ment of Palestine.
The attack directed against the credibility of
that episode has been strong, confident, almost
triumphant In its tone.* The defence has been
rather timid and hesitating ; the introduction of
Quirlnius's name has been abandoned almost
universally as a demonstrated blunder ; and even
the reality of the " First Enrolment " has been
championed by Luke's advocates in a very reluctant
and half-hearted way.
But to make even one of these concessions is
* See chapter v.

46 THE DESIGN AND UNITY
practically and logically to abandon the case, so
far as Luke's character as a historian Is concerned.
He who says that " St. Luke Is In error In the
name of Quirinius," admits that, even when Luke
had learned a fact from some authority, he could
not keep himself free from a huge blunder in
stating it.
Beyond all doubt, the suspicion entertained
about Luke's History is due to the belief that,
when he touches on general history, his references
are usually demonstrably false, as contrary to his
torical record, and are rarely or never conclusively
supported by other historians. He is the only
Evangelist who has attempted to place his narrative
In its proper relation to contemporary history ;
and when he tries to do so, almost every one,
even most of his defenders, admit that he cannot
do It without making errors.
It is generally admitted that (as Canon Gore puts
It) " the chronological data In Luke II. and Hi. were
supplied by himself and not by his sources ". Luke
gives us the result of his own investigations Into
the historical surroundings of the life of Christ.
But If his investigations were of such a character
that he confused the census of 8 b.c. with that of

OF LUKE'S HISTORY 47
6-7 A.D., and imagined that Christ was born "in
the days of Herod the King," during a census held
about ten or eleven years after the death of Herod
— when Herod was king, and yet when a Roman
viceroy was organising the new province of Pales
tine — of what value were his Investigations, or his
Ideas about past history, or his evidence ? * What
should we think of the historical qualities of a
modern author who began an account of the life
of Hereward the Wake by confusing between Ed
ward the Confessor and William the Conqueror .''
The one case would be no worse than the other.
The first attempt that the author makes to con
nect his subject with contemporary history shows
hopeless Ignorance of that history.
It Is no wonder In these circumstances that
Luke's History has fallen under suspicion so
strong that the case In Its favour has been
generally considered weaker than that In favour of
any other Important book in the New Testament.
When I ventured, in defiance of the general
verdict, to argue that Luke is a real historian —
and " the first and the essential quality of the
* There are other impossibilities upon impossibilities which
have often been stated, and are repeated in chapter v.

48 THE DESIGN AND UNITY OF LUKE'S HISTORY
great historian Is truth " — even so conservative
and so friendly a scholar as Professor Sanday found
that my " treatment of St. Luke as a historian
seems too optimistic ".
¦" But it Is an essentially Inconsistent position to
fancy that we can accept three-fourths or nine-
tenths of what Luke says as true, and reject the
rest. Destroy a historian's credit in one critical
point, and there remains nought.
The confounding of one census with another in
this case would be one of the serious things, which
condemn the would-be historian as hopelessly In
capable of accuracy or sound historical judgment.
His statements cease to have any value In them
selves ; we can In each case only seek for a source,
and estimate the probability of the statement by
the authority of the source, after subtracting the
likelihood of some other blunder having been
made by Luke in using his source.
To judge how seriously this blunder affects the
author's character, how Inevitable are the Infer
ences which the logical mind must deduce from
the blunder, we must glance at two preliminary
points which will form the subject of chapters Iii.
and iv.

LUKE'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE ROMAN WORLD 49

CHAPTER III.
LUKE'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE ROMAN WORLD.
The reign of Augustus, as is well known, is en
veloped In the deepest obscurity. While we are
unusually well informed about the immediately
preceding period of Roman history, and for part
of the reign of his successor, Tiberius, we possess
the elaborate and accurate, though in some respects
strongly prejudiced account of Tacitus, the facts
of Augustus's reign have to be pieced together from
scanty. Incomplete and disjointed authorities.
Moreover, obscure events in a remote corner of
the Roman world can never even In the best
attested periods be expected to come within the
purview of Roman history. Such events are pre
served to us only by some accidental reference or
some local authority ; and it Is unreasonable to
cast doubt on the local authority, either because
he relates what Is not related by the Roman
historians, or because he regards things from a

50 LUKE'S ATTITUDE
different point of view, and sees them In different
perspective, and applies to them a very different
scale of importance.
The real value of these accidentally preserved
local authorities Is that they do not give the
Roman point of view, but enable us to contemplate
part of the Roman world, as It was seen by non-
Roman eyes. What would we not give for a
review of Cassar's Gallic campaigns by a leading
Gaulish Druid or chief, or for a criticism of
Agrlcola by the chief bard of Boadlcea or of Gal-
gacus .? Tacitus, Indeed, has expressed the views
of Galgacus, but we feel that it is Tacitus, not the
British chief, that speaks.
We should, undoubtedly, find in the words of
the Gaul or the Briton a very different view from
the official justification and Apologia for his career
published by Cassar, or the panegyric composed by
Tacitus. We should certainly have considerable
difficulty In reconciling the opposing authorities,
and In striking a balance between the discrepant
judgments and statements as to facts. But it would
be sheer unreason to set aside as mere invention
every assertion of the Gallic or British authority,
which could not be established on Roman authority.

TOWARDS THE ROMAN WORLD 51
Reasonable and sound criticism will apply the
same standard to Luke's history. It will not de
mand that he, a Greek of the wider Greek world,
as distinguished from the narrower country of
Greece proper, should look at everything through
Roman spectacles, and express everything precisely
as a Roman would do. It will rate his value all
the higher, because he has not done that — because
he shows us how Roman things were looked at by
one who was not a Roman. It will be prepared to
find differences of expression and description, even
when the Greek and the Roman are looking at the
same historical fact. To estimate Luke fairly, It
will ask what was his attitude towards the Roman
world. In answer to this question, one might say
much ; but even a brief chapter may be of some
use. On the whole, Luke's view has In essentials a.)
strong Paullnlstic character. He was disposed
towards the Imperial government and political
institutions very much as Paul was, and as the
wider Greek world In general was. He accepted
unreservedly the existing facts of society and
organisation. But there was a difference between
them.

52 LUKE'S ATTITUDE
Paul, as a Roman himself, spoke from the
Roman point of view. Though he was a citizen
of Tarsus and from that point of view a member
of the Greek world, his Roman citizenship over
rode his Greek citizenship, and he had beyond all
doubt been educated from Infancy to understand
his position as a Roman.* His point of view Is
clearly and emphatically Roman. Those who talk
of Paul as a mere Jew are blinding themselves to
his real position and to the character of the
Grasco-Roman world in his time.
But Luke's point of view was not the same.
Luke Is throughout his work a Greek, never a
Roman ; and his statements must be estimated
accordingly. Before criticising, we must make
sure that we understand rightly ; and we shall
never understand rightly, unless we begin by sym
pathising with the writer and the tone of his work.
Lukethen speaks of things Roman as they appeared
to a Greek. The Greeks never could quite under
stand Roman matters ; even the mysteries of the
Roman system of personal names were as puzzling
* Much might be said on this subject ; but it belongs to a
study of St. Paul's life, and the proofs are found at intervals
throughout his career. The subject is touched upon several times
in St. Paul the Traveller, e.g., pp. 30 f., 225, 315.

TOWARDS THE ROMAN WORLD 53
to almost all Greeks as they are to a modern school
boy or college student.* Hence, for example. In
the remarkable scene at Paphos (Acts xiii. 9), It Is
difficult to feel any confidence whether or not Paul
disclosed himself to Serglus Paullus in his Roman
character. If he did so, It is clear that his Roman
name ought to be given. Strictly taken, Luke's
language at this point Implies that Paul showed
himself only as a Greek traveller and philosopher
to the Roman proconsul ; and, on the whole, this
seems perhaps most probable. But that must be
gathered from the career of Paul as a whole ; and
It would not be safe to Infer It from the fact that
Luke gives the alternative name in its Greek — not
In Its Roman form. Paul did not, perhaps, develop
his Idea of Christianity for the Roman empire
quite so early.
Luke, indeed, does not distinctly mark any
further stage of development ; but to Luke the
great antithesis — Gentile and Jew — quite obliterated
the lesser distinction between Roman citizen and
Roman provincial, when the provincial was a
* The difficulty of being accurate about Roman personal names
might be illustrated plentifully even from the books of dis
tinguished modern classical scholars, an unpleasant topic frora
which I refrain.

54 LUKE'S ATTITUDE
Greek. What power lay in the Roman name, the
thorough Greek never comprehended ; and hence
Luke has never disclosed to us the fact — which Is
beyond all doubt — that Paul had a Roman name.
Had it been clearly present In the consciousness of
all modern scholars that Paul must have been either
Galus Julius Paullus or something of that style,
many things that have been said would have been
better said, or left unsaid. Yet It is as certain as
anything can be, that a Roman citizen necessarily
had a Roman name, that Paul could not have
revealed himself to the magistrates at Phillppi
or to Claudius Lysias, and that he could not
have appealed to the emperor, except by virtue
of his Roman name, which he must have stated
openly. Owing to the failure of a Greek to comprehend
Roman names and their Importance, we have no
clear record about this Important side of Paul's
career. Luke sees him only In two aspects, as
" Hebrew or Gra;co-Roman " : he never sees him
as " Greek or Roman ".*
*I should now be inclined to modify lines 6, 12, 16 of St. Paid
the Traveller, p. 83, so as to eliminate the word " Roman ". Ex
cept in those lines, the scene is there described on Paul's Greek
side, as I think is right.

TOWARDS THE ROMAN WORLD 55
As a preparation for the study of Luke's
History, one ought to become familiar with the
remains of the Greek used in the cities of the
wider Greece,* to understand as far as possible the
ideas of the people among whom Luke grew up,
and to appreciate the way In which they rendered
or misrendered Roman things. We shall then
begin to appreciate better Luke's meaning and his
standard as a historian. It Is true that he regularly
uses the popular phraseology, and not the strictly
and technically accurate terms for Roman things ; t
but he is decidedly more accurate In essentials
than the ordinary Greek, even the official Greek,
of the Eastern cities. He never Is guilty of
the blunders that puzzle the epigraphlst in Asian
or Galatlan inscriptions.
It has often been remarked that Luke wrote for
a public ignorant of Palestine, its customs and Its
language, and familiar with the surroundings of
Gra;co-Roman life In the great cities of the
empire. He explains to his readers Semitic names
and terms ; he describes the situation of Nazareth
* Canon Hicks in Classical Review, 1887, pp. 4, 42 ; Deissmann,
Bibelstudien, 1895, and Neue Bibelstudien, 1897. See also Ex
pository Tiines, Oct., 1898, p. 9.
+ St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 30 f.. Ill, 135, 255, etc.

56 LUKE'S ATTITUDE
and Capernaum as cities of Galilee, of Arimathea
as a city of the Jews, of the country of the
Gadarenes as over against Galilee, and he even
tells the distance of the Mount of Olives and of
Emmaus from Jerusalem.
Now contrast with these explanations the allu
sions to the cities of the Greek and Italian lands.
The fact that Syracuse and Puteoll and Rhegium
are named without any geographical explanation
might perhaps be explained from their fame and
importance. Syracuse was one of the greatest
Greek cities ; Puteoll was the great harbour for
passengers by the sea voyage to Rome from the
East ; and Rhegium was situated at a very striking
point on the voyage. Similarly, while he explains
the position of Phillppi and Perga, Myra and
Lystra, he assumes that the situation of Athens,
of Corinth, and of Ephesus is familiar to his
readers. He thinks that the coasts of the iEgean
Sea need no explanation, or that the general
character of the voyage sufficiently explains the
position of Troas, Cos, Miletus, Cssarela and
Ptolemals. The relation of Cenchreas to Corinth *
is also taken as familiar. But the most striking
* Acts xviii. 18.

TOWARDS THE ROMAN WORLD 57
case occurs as the travellers approach Rome. The
author assumes that the Market of Applus and the
Three Taverns are familiar points on the road,
which Paul must traverse between Puteoll and
Rome. Instead of telling their distance from
Rome, he uses them as actual measures of distance
to show how far the brethren came forth from
Rome to welcome Paul.
Too much stress should not be laid on reasoning
so slight as this. There Is not enough of evidence
to justify full confidence. But, so far as It goes, it
suggests that Luke wrote for an audience which
knew the environs of Rome and Corinth far more
Intimately than the country round Jerusalem and
the Sea of Galilee. And, on the whole, it Is on
the great lines of communication leading from
Syria and Asia to Rome that most knowledge
Is assumed. Further, Luke sometimes adapts Incidents to the
comprehension of his readers by expressing them in
terms which, though not a literal description of the
original facts, approximate to the general sense and
are more readily intelligible to the Western reader.
An excellent example of this is found In Luke v.
17-20, as compared with Mark Ii. 1-4.

58

LUKE'S ATTITUDE

MARK ii. 1-4. LUKE v. 17-20.
And it came to pass on
one of those days, that he
was teaching ; and there
were Pharisees and doctors
of the law sitting by, which
were come out of every
village of Galilee and Judsea
and Jerusalem : and the
power of the Lord was with
him to heal. And behold,
men bring on a bed a man
that was palsied : and they
sought to bring him in, and
to lay him before him. And
not finding by what way they
might bring him in because
of the multitude, they went
up to the house-top, and let
him down through the tiles
with his couch into the midst
before Jesus.
Here It is obvious that Mark gives the Incident
In the more exact way. The house was a humble
erection, with a flat roof of earth or other material,
which was easily destroyed and as easily replaced.
The bearers took advantage of this ; mounting on
the roof, they broke it up, and let down the couch
through the hole which they thus made.
A modern writer might have explained all this

And when he entered again
into Capernaum after some
days, it was noised that he
was in the house. And many
were gathered together, so
that there was no longer
room for them, no, not even
about the door : and he spake
the word unto them. And
they come, bringing unto him
a man sick of the palsy,
borne of four. And when
they could not come nigh
unto him for the crowd, they
uncovered the roof where he
was : " and when they had
broken it up, they let down
the bed whereon the sick of
the palsy lay.

Literally, " they unroofed the roof "

TOWARDS THE ROMAN WORLD 59
to his readers. But Luke, although he Interprets
a single Semitic word occasionally, would not
spare time and space enough for a more elaborate
description of details, which were, in his estimation,
unimportant. His readers were familiar with a
different kind of house, covered with tiles, and
having a hole (impluvium) in the roof of the
principal chamber (atrium), where the company
would be assembled. To turn aside from his
proper subject and describe differences of archi
tecture would have distracted attention from the
really Important facts. As has been often pointed
out,* Luke never describes such features, but
leaves his readers to Imagine for themselves from
their own knowledge the surroundings amid which
his story was enacted.
Accordingly, he preserves all the essential
features — the dense crowd preventing access to the
Master by the proper approach — the taking of the
bed with the sick man In it up on the roof — the
letting down of the bed through the roof before
the Saviour's eyes. But he does not tell that the
bearers broke a hole through the roof. A tiled
roof, such as his readers were accustomed to, is
* E.g., St. Paul the Traveller, p. 17.

60 LUKE'S ATTITUDE
strong ; a hole cannot easily be made through it ;
and when It Is broken, it Is a long and expensive
operation to repair It. It would seem unnatural
that a hole should be violently made In such a
roof ; and Luke leaves his readers to apply their
own knowledge, and to understand that the
bearers let the man on his couch down through
(the opening In) the tiles.
Matthew, again, regards all these details about
the manner of bringing the man as unimportant,
and omits them. Corresponding to Mark II. 2-4
and Luke v. 18, 19, he has only these words, ix.
2 : " And behold they brought him a man sick of
the palsy, lying on a bed ". It was only the words
and acts of the Master that he considered worthy of
space. Luke and Mark and Matthew all say that
Jesus, " seeing their faith," told the man that his
sins were forgiven. He saw that the man had the
same " faith able to receive cure and salvation " as
the lame man at Lystra, Acts xiv. But Luke and
Mark explain how the special circumstances made
evident the faith of the bearers and the man, while
Matthew leaves the reader to gather from Jesus'
words, that he saw some special evidence of faith
In the case before him. Matthew relates the

TOWARDS THE ROMAN WORLD 61
Story as one long familiar ; and It would not be
thoroughly intelligible to us without the proof of
eager faith which Luke and Mark relate. The
latter stand on an earlier stage than Matthew.
We notice that Luke's account here Is not suited
to a Greek house, but only to a Roman house. The
Greek house was of totally different construction
from the Roman ; and, if Luke had been writing
primarily for a public resident In the great Greek
cities of the y^gean lands, he would probably
have either related the incident in its original
Palestinian form, or imparted to It a turn that
would suit the style of house usual In those cities.
It happens, fortunately, that we can Illustrate and
prove this point by a series of analogous cases.
The Roman comic dramatists, Plautus and
Terence, adapted Greek plays to the Roman stage,
modifying the plot and incidents In some respects
to suit the tastes and the knowledge of a Roman
audience. When some Incident In the Greek play
turned on a peculiarity In the structure of a Greek
house, the Roman playwright often modified the
facts, so as to suit the style of house that was
familiar to his audience. Thus, a Greek dramatist
wrote a play called " The Braggart," in which the

62 LUKE'S ATTITUDE
relation between two lovers Is discovered by a slave
resident In the neighbouring house. In adapting
this play, Plautus describes this discovery In the
form that the slave, pursuing an ape which had
escaped from his master's house, clambered over
the roof of the atrium of his neighbour's house,
and In this way was able to look through the hole
in the roof or impluvium into the atrium, and saw
the lovers sitting side by side. (
As Lorenz has observed,* this could not have
been the form which the Incident had In the
original Greek play. The Greek house had no
atrium with its impluvium, nor anything corre
sponding to It. The ordinary house in the Greek
cities contained an open court or aula, to which
access was gained by a passage leading from the
front door. This court was surrounded, some
times simply by the house walls, sometimes by a
narrow stoa or portico, f resting on the house walls
and supported Inside by columns. The covered
chambers of the house opened off the back of this
court, and the part of the mansion which contained
* See the introduction to hisadition of Plautus, Miles Gloriosus,
p. 11. t In that case the court was called peristylium.

TOWARDS THE ROMAN WORLD 63
these chambers was usually of one or, at most, two
storeys and covered by a flat roof. As the houses
in these Greek cities were usually built close to
gether, divided from one another by the house wall
(which was common to both), it was easy to look
from the flat roof (or from the windows of the
upper storey) of one house Into the court of the
next ; and thus the slave in the Greek play saw
the lovers in the aula of the neighbouring house.
In this same way Thekla at Iconlum sat at a win
dow in the house of her mother Theokleia, and
heard Paul preaching in the court of the house of
Onesiphorus, her neighbour. See p. 72.
Luke uses even the Roman form of expression.
The regular term for " the roof" (regarded from
the outside) was In Latin " the tiles " ; * but In
Greek the collective singular form " the tiling "
was used.t Luke speaks after the Roman fashion,
and says that they let the sick man down " through
the tiles," \ by which he implies the roof of Roman
style. In a similar way, Terence In the Phormio,
707, speaks of a snake as having " fallen from the
* Tegitla : see Brix's note on Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 156.
\ KepafMos : see Pollux, vii., 162; Aristophanes, Clouds, 1127;
Thucydides, ii., 4, etc.
I 5ia Ttav Kepdfiay.

64 LUKE'S ATTITUDE
tiles {i.e., the roof) through the impluvium,'' ex
pressing the same meaning in a fuller way.
In a review In the "Theologische Litteraturzeit-
ung, 1897, p. 534, Dr. Johannes Weiss says :
" When Mark writes ' they uncovered the roof,
and when they had broken It up, they let down
the bed,' but Luke on the other hand says ' they
let him down through the tiles,' the former thinks
of the Palestinian style of building, while the
latter thinks of the roof of the Grasco-Roman
house ". This expresses practically the same view
which has been advocated in the preceding pages,
but the word Grasco-Roman seems to require
modification. Luke writes with a view to the
Roman house alone ; and his language would not
suit the Greek style of house.
Luke must have adapted his expression to suit
either a circle of readers, or more probably the
single reader, Theophilus, for whose Instruction
he composed his History ; and, in giving to his
narrative the form seen in v. 20, he evidently felt
that Theophilus was used to the Roman and not
the Greek house architecture. Taking this In
conjunction with the use made of the Market of
Appius and the Three Taverns, we find a distinct

TOWARDS THE ROMAN WORLD 65
probability that Theophilus was a citizen of
Rome. Moreover, Theophilus Is addressed by an epi
thet,* which, under the empire, was peculiarly
appropriated to Romans of high rank, and which
became during the second century a technical title
indicating equestrian (as distinguished from sena
torial) rank. Examples are numerous In the Im
perial Greek inscriptions ; and those who have
made themselves familiar with the usages of
Roman and provincial life under the empire, will
recognise the high probability that Luke uses this
adjective In I. 4, as In every other place, f to
indicate the official (probably equestrian) rank
of the person to whom he applies it.
Luke, then, was adapting the form of his nar
rative either to a single Roman or to a Roman
circle of readers. The frequency and emphasis
with which he mentions matters that are specific
ally Roman must Impress every reader.
In regard to Roman officials of high rank, the
favourable judgment which they always pass on
Christ and on his followers Is so marked a feature
" Kpdriffros. See note, p. 71.
t Acts xxiii. 26, xxiv. 3, xxvi. 25. See Note at end of this chapter.
5

66 LUKE'S ATTITUDE
of Luke's work, that It must have been prominent
before his mind.
Luke mentions formally the charge which the
Jews vainly made, that Jesus had been guilty of
disloyalty and treason against the Roman emperor,
xxiii. 2. John mentions It very Informally.*
Matthew and Mark are silent about the nature of
the charge. Luke records the thrice repeated
judgment of Pilate acquitting Jesus of all fault
before the Roman law ; John mentions the ac
quittal once In similar terms ; Matthew represents
Pilate as disclaiming all responsibility for his
death, but not as formally pronouncing him In
nocent of all fault.
In Luke's Second Book this feature is still more
marked. The Imperial officers stand between
Paul and the Jews to save him from them. The
Proconsul of Cyprus was almost converted to
Christianity. The Proconsul of Achaia dismissed
the Jews' case against him as groundless before the
law. Festus, the Procurator of Palestine, found
in Paul nothing worthy of death : he had diffi
culty in discovering any definite charge against
* xviii. 30: "If this man were not an evildoer, we should not
have delivered him up unto thee ".

TOWARDS THE ROMAN WORLD 67
him, which he could report in sending him up to
the supreme court of the empire. Even Felix,
another Procurator, one of the worst of Roman
officials, was affected by Paul's teaching, and to
some extent protected him, and did not condemn
him, though to please the Jews he left him In
prison. Among Inferior Roman officials, Claudius Lysias,
Julius, Cornelius, even the jailer In the colony of
Phillppi, were friendly to the Christians, or actually
joined them. In the few cases In which the
magistrates of a Roman colony took action against
Paul, their action Is shown to have been In error
(as at Phillppi), or Is passed over In silence and
the blame Is laid on the jealousy and hatred of
the Jews (as at PIsIdlan Antioch and Lystra).
The prfetors of Phillppi scourged Paul, but they
apologised, and confessed they had been In the
wrong. The magistrates of the Greek cities, like
Iconlum, Thessalonica and Athens, were far more
severe against Paul than those of Roman colonies.*
Even the publicans, those hated Instruments of
a taxation after the anti-Jewish and Romanising
* The subject of this paragraph is more fully treated in St.
Paul the Traveller, p. 304 ff.

68 LUKE'S ATTITUDE
Style, are far more kindly treated by Luke than by
Matthew or Mark. Compare, for example, the
" publicans and sinners " In the house of Levi or
Matthew. Both Mark and Matthew designate the
company by this name ; but Luke calls them
" publicans and others," and confines the more
opprobrious phrase to the mouth of the scribes.*
Luke alone sets the publican and the Pharisee over
against one another as good and bad types, xviii.
lo. It Is true that several sayings of Christ In
favour of publicans are given also by Matthew and
Mark ; they were too characteristic to be omitted ;
but Luke has more of them.
It Is not unconnected with this character in his
work that Luke records with special Interest the
acts and words of Christ implying that the Gospel
was as open to the Gentiles as to the Jews.
Similar examples are found in all the Gospels,
because no one who gave a fair account of the
teaching of Christ could omit them ; but In Luke
they are more numerous and more emphatic. f
It has been, however, pointed out, as a proof
* Matt. ix. 10 ; Mark ii. 15 ; Luke v. 29 (cp. vii. 34).
t Alford quotes iv. 25-27, ix. 52-56, x. 33, xv. 11 ff., xvii. 16-18,
xviii. 10 ff., xix. 5, 9.

TOWARDS THE ROMAN WORLD 69
that such examples cannot be relied on, that Luke
omits entirely the story of the Saviour's visit
to Phoenicia, including the case of the Syrophoe-
nician woman whose great faith was commended.
But in that story occurs the saying, " I was not
sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of
Israel," Matt. xv. 24 ; and In view of such sayings
as Luke — and Luke alone — records in Iv. 25-27,*
the historian might doubt whether the Incident
was not likely to give a mistaken Impression
of the Saviour's mission. As to the passing
In silence over a visit to Phoenicia, It is pointed
out below,f that Luke deliberately refrains from
describing the journeys and movements of Christ.
It Is, therefore, plain on the face of Luke's
History, that he has taken pains to connect his
narrative with the general history of the empire,
and that he has noted with special care the relations
between the new religion and the Roman state or
Its officials. Elsewhere I have tried to show that
Luke thought of his work, from one point of
view, as " an appeal to the truth of history against
the Immoral and ruinous policy of the reigning
* See xxiv. 47 (paralleled by Matt, xxviii. 19, and Mark xvi. 15).
t See p. 211 ff.

70 LUKE'S ATTITUDE
emperor ; a temperate and solemn record by one
who had played a great part in them of the real
facts regarding the formation of the Church, Its
steady and unswerving loyalty In the past, Its firm
resolve to accept the existing Imperial government.
Its friendly reception by many Romans, and its
triumphant vindication In the first great trial
at Rome. The book was the work of one who
had been trained by Paul to look forward to
Christianity becoming the religion of the empire
and of the world, who regarded Christianity as
destined not to destroy but to recreate the
¦'¦* *
empire. *
In such circumstances it Is obvious that the
historian was bound to be specially careful that his
references to matters of Roman history, and especi
ally his first reference — the subject of this study —
were accurate. But the accusation which we have
to meet is that It grossly misrepresented the
character of Roman procedure, and was Inac
curate In fact. If the accusation Is right, any
Roman citizen who possessed even a small know
ledge of the facts of administration must have
seen the gross inaccuracy at a glance. How, then,
* St. Paul the Traveller, p. 309 f.

TOWARDS THE ROMAN WORLD 71
does It happen that, while the circumstances of the
birth of Christ were closely scrutinised by the
opponents of Christianity and subjected to much
misrepresentation and many charges of falsification,
no one In Roman times seems ever to have dis
covered the Inaccuracies which many modern in
quirers imagine to themselves .''
Note I. — Professor Blass in his welcorae book. Philology
of the Gospels, 1898, p. ig, declares that the epithet Kpdri<TTos,
in Luke's language, had no such force as we find in
it, but was merely " the ordinary one in epistolary and
oratorical style, when the person addressed was in a some
what exalted position " As examples, he quotes Paul's
address to Felix and Festus, who were both Roman officials
of equestrian rank ! These are two of the many instances
on which the proof rests that the title was peculiarly
appropriated at that period to Romans of rank. The same
scholar refers, further, to the examples quoted by Otto in
his edition of the Epistle to Diognetus, p. 79 ff. (53 ff ). I cannot
consult this book, but Otto considers that Diognetus v/as the
philosopher, the friend and teacher of Marcus Aurelius, and
the emperor might well raise his teacher to equestrian
rank, as Septimius Severus raised Antipater, the teacher of
his sons, to the much higher dignity of the consulship ; and, if
Otto's identification be accepted, we may regard the epithet
as a proof that Diognetus was honoured by his imperial pupil.
Galen * addresses Kpdno-re Bao-o-e, also a Roman of rank. Lon-
ginus addresses Postumius Terentianus, Plutarch speaks of
Fundanus, and Arteniidorus of Cassius Maximus by the same
epithet, in all cases undoubtedly employing it in the technical
* De libr. suis (Kuhn, vol. xix.).

72 LUKE'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE ROMAN WORLD
imperial sense. Epaphroditus, to whom Josephus dedicated
his Jewish Antiquities and Life, is a more doubtful case ; but
the dedication implies that he was a man of influence in
Rome, and though obviously a freedman (on account of his
name), he probably had been honoured with equestrian rank
by his imperial patron. The Aphrodisius whom Galen ad
dresses as Kpana-re and (piXraTe, in his Prognost. (Kuhn, vol.
xix.), is also uncertain ; Galen, however, lived amid high
society in Rome.
I have always conceded that Greeks were not invariably
accurate in using Latin titles and technical terms, such as
optimus (translated KpdncrTos) ; but. the above examples show
how often the technical and accurate sense is found in Greek.
But Professor Blass has his mind so fixed on Greek literature,
of which he is one of the first exponents in Europe, that he
sometimes omits to notice Roman facts.
The usage in Theophrastus, of course, lies apart from our
subject and belongs to an earlier period of society. Even
Horace's optimus, used of Octavius and Quinctius, is pre-
imperial, though both men were persons of rank in Rome,
and therefore conform to our rule.
Note II. — In the Acta of Paul and Thekla Paul was preach
ing in the house of Onesiphorus ev ^caa t^s eKKXrialas (or
without the last two words) : is the last word a later alteration
of the original a-vXijs ? In the Armenian version Paul preached
in the house of Onesiphorus in a great assembly, and Thekla
sat at a window which was close to their roof

THE STORY OF THE BIRTH OF CHRIST 73

CHAPTER IV.
IMPORTANCE IN LUKE'S HISTORY OF THE STORY OF
THE BIRTH OF CHRIST.
It needs no proof that Luke attached the highest
importance to this part of his narrative. That
Jesus was Indicated from the beginning as the
Messiah — though not a necessary part of his life
and work, and wholly omitted by Mark and only
briefly Indicated In mystical language by John —
was a highly Interesting and Important fact In
itself, and could not fail to Impress the historian.
The elaboration and detail of the first two chapters
of the Gospel form a sufficient proof that Luke
recognised the Importance of the central Incident
In them.*
Further, the author must have regarded this
part of his work with special Interest, and been
impelled to work it up with peculiar care, on
account of the authority on which It rested ; and
* See above, p. 14.

74 IMPORTANCE IN LUKE'S HISTORY
he takes some pains to show his reader what was
the authority.
The beautifully told story of Luke L, II., Is an
episode of family history of the most private
character. The facts could be known only to a
very small number of persons. If Luke had the
slightest trace of historical Instinct, he must have
satisfied himself that the narrative which he gives
rested on the evidence of one ol the few persons
to whom the facts could be known. It Is not In
keeping with the ancient style that he should
formally name his authority ; but he does not
leave It doubtful whose authority he believed him
self to have. " His mother kept all these sayings
hid in her heart ; " " Mary kept all these sayings,
pondering them In her heart ; " * those two sen
tences would be sufficient. The historian who
wrote like that believed that he had the authority
of the Mother herself.
But those two sentences are not the only indica
tions of the source whence Luke believed his
information to come. Some facts intimately con
cerning Elizabeth are mentioned In I. 24 and 41 ;
and the narrative carefully explains how these facts
*ii. 19 and 51.

OF THE STORY OF THE BIRTH OF CHRIST 75
became known to Mary, I. 36 and 41 : she had
been told. But It Is never stated that facts Inti
mately concerning Mary were mentioned by her
to Elizabeth. The narrative has the form which

Is natural only If Mary Is understood to be the
authority throughout : she simply states what con
cerned herself, while. In what concerned Elizabeth,
she not merely states the facts, but also explains
that she has first-hand authority.
Moreover, what concerned Mary Is expressly
said to have remained secret, known to herself
alone and pondered over in her own heart. It
would be a contradiction that this secret of her
heart should be the property of others to tell about
her. The historian, by emphasizing the silence
and secrecy In which she treasured up the facts,
gives the reader to understand that she Is the
authority. It is a different thing when we read, i. 65 f.,
" these sayings were noised abroad throughout all
the hill country of Judaea. And all that heard
them laid them up in their hearts, saying, JVhai
then shall this child be ? " There a subject of
notoriety, which deeply impressed the whole dis
trict, is referred to. What Is known to many is

76 IMPORTANCE IN LUKE'S HISTORY
no secret, and In fact Is expressly said to have been
a topic of conversation through the country.
The people In the hill country of Judasa knew
about the marvellous circumstances of John's
birth, and talked about it, and wondered. But
at Nazareth nothing was generally known. Jesus
had been born far away. His parents brought
him to Nazareth after some time had elapsed.
Even after Herod's death his shadow lay heavy on
the land ; and the parents, being subjects of his
son Antlpas, were not likely to talk to their neigh
bours about the old king's relations to the child
and about the prophecies of Simeon and Anna —
apart from the consideration that the whole subject
must have seemed too sacred for gossip. Mary
did not herself comprehend the things that had
occurred. She kept them hid In her heart, and
apparently did not even tell her husband what
was In her mind. This child was not to be an
unalloyed delight either to her country or herself ;
he was " set for the falling and rising up of many
In Israel, and for a sign which is spoken against " ;
and for herself, " a sword should pierce through
her own soul ". It was a dread and vague future
about which she pondered In the depths of her own

OF THE STORY OF THE BIRTH OF CHRIST 77
mind, as " the child grew and waxed strong, filled
with wisdom". In that marvellous picture,
sketched In such simple and brief terms, only he
that deliberately shuts his mind against all literary
feeling can fail to catch the tone of a mother's
heart. In the description of the early days of John and
of Jesus the reader notices the woman's and the
mother's feeling, watching the growth of the two
children, to whom and through whom so much
had been promised. As to John, " the child grew
and waxed strong and was in the wilderness (of
Judah, the remote country of his birth) till the day
of his showing unto Israel ". But about her own
son there Is an added touch of warmth, " the child
grew and waxed strong, filled with wisdom ; and
the grace of God was upon him ".*
No one who judges on the ordinary canons of
criticism which govern the Interpretation of ancient
literature, can doubt that It is through design, and
not by accident, that there occur in the opening
chapters of Luke's History all these little touches,
indicating so delicately and so skilfully what
authority he had to depend upon in the beginning
* i. 80 ; ii. 40.

78 IMPORTANCE IN LUKE'S HISTORY
of his narrative. This Is specially clear when we
remember the declaration made by the author In
his preface, that he had investigated from their
origin the facts which he Is going to narrate.
After such a preface, and with all the indications
In the narrative. It Is plain that the historian
either believed his statements to be based on the
authority of the Virgin Mary herself, or has
deliberately tried to create a false Impression that
such was the case. Is It a rational supposition, is
It psychologically possible, that any man who was
impressed with the sacredness of the subject which
he is treating should Intentionally found his
narrative upon such a falsehood as this would be .?
Understanding that Mary herself Is the authority
to whom Luke appeals, we find that the passage
becomes clearer, both as to what it states and what
it omits. The origin of the narrative may possibly explain
why Luke and Matthew give such different ac
counts of the circumstances of the birth of Christ.
Matthew gives the public account, that which was
generally known during the Saviour's life and after
his death ; and popular belief has always some
tendency to transform and adapt to moral pur-

OF THE STORY OF THE BIRTH OF CHRIST 79
poses facts that are much talked about. Luke
gives from knowledge gained within the family an
account of facts known only to the family, and In
part to the Mother alone.
It Is most probable that Luke had heard the
story which Matthew gives, and It would have
been easy to fit this into his own narrative without
disturbing either account. But they did not rest
on equal authority ; and Luke would not mix the
two. What he had got was an account of the
miraculous birth and of the circumstances which
had most deeply Impressed the Mother's mind
with regard to the origin and mission of her Child,
while It was rather the relations of the Child to
the old king that had impressed themselves on the
imagination of his followers. In them Matthew
read a fulfilment of prophecies about the Messiah.
But they had not similarly affected Mary's mind,
and they were not among the facts which she pon
dered over In her heart as pledges of the great
future that lay before this little Child.
Luke therefore confined himself to what he
had on the highest authority. So much he states
in full detail ; and the rest of the first twelve
years of Jesus' life he sums up in the brief ex-

80 IMPORTANCE IN LUKE'S HISTORY
pression, ii. 40 : " He was filled with wisdom and
the grace of God was upon him ". Then came a
remarkable Instance of the young Boy's awakening
consciousness of his own mission. He had been
brought up by his Mother to think of Joseph as
his father ; but suddenly he declared to her
that his Father's business lay in a different
direction. Here, again, there was something for
the Mother's heart to ponder over, while her Son
went on once more in the natural development of
a boy, " Increasing in wisdom and stature and in
favour with God and man ".
We can argue, then, with perfect confidence
that Luke did not take the narrative of the birth
and childhood of Christ from mere current talk and
general belief : he had It in a form for which Mary
herself was In his opinion the responsible authority.
What, then, was this form ? It must have been
either written narrative or oral communication.
If it were written, the writer must have been
either Mary herself or some one who recorded her
story so carefully and faithfully as to leave full
expression to Mary's own feelings.
That Mary herself wrote it seems highly im
probable. We should not expect that she had the

OF THE STORY OF THE BIRTH OF CHRIST 81
literary Interest or skill which might lead her to
wish to perpetuate the facts In her own formal
narrative : it is more probable, considering the
circumstances of her position in youth, that she
would lack the power of setting down a story in
written expression with such rare art as to have
the appearance of being perfectly natural, even
though she would be able to tell it well orally in
simple, natural, unstudied words. Moreover, It
seems Improbable that she should desire of her
own self to make public the facts which she had
kept so long hid In her heart. It Is more natural
to think that she hardly ever spoke of them, except
to the rare Individuals whose sympathy drew her
on. The language, too, has a tone and character
that do not suggest a formal autobiographical nar
rative. It seems, if I may venture to express my
individual opinion, to be one of those which lose
from being recited In public ; It Is one to be read
alone or in the company of some perfectly sym
pathetic person, but which suffers from the presence
of any one who is not in perfect sympathy. It
expresses the heart of Mary ; but In the form In
which it was expressed to a sympathetic heart, and
not as prepared for publication, 6

82 IMPORTANCE IN LUKE'S HISTORY
It Is more easily conceivable that some third
person, Intimate with Mary and recognising the
Importance of having an authoritative narrative of
these events, should have given literary form to an
account coming direct from her own lips. But
this account must have been either a part of a
complete life of Christ — one of those which Luke
refers to In his preface, I. i, "repeated* according as
] they who were from the beginning eye-witnesses of
'the word delivered the tradition " — ^or an Indepen
dent narrative, ranking with the authority of origin
from Mary, and describing just so much as she
was best able to tell.
The existence of such an Independent narrative,
and the utter oblivion Into which it fell, If it ever
existed, seem alike most Improbable. Moreover,
suppose, for example, the author who gave It
literary form to have been John, In whose house
she lived from the crucifixion till her death, we
must suppose that her words have passed through
the modifying influence of John's mind ; thereafter
John's words have passed through the modifying
influence of Luke's mind ; and yet, after all this,
* On the sense of a.vaTd^a<r8at see Blass, Philology of the Gospels,
1898, p. 14 f.

OF THE STORY OF THE BIRTH OF CHRIST 83
they continue to show clear and fresh the marks
of their origin. The narrative seems not to have
passed through so many stages.
Further, the earliest followers of Christ seem to
have been so entirely occupied with his engrossing
personality that they thought little or not at all
about his Mother. She hardly appears In three of
the four Gospels. Matthew tells the story of the
birth of her son in such a way that Joseph Is the
prominent person, and Mary a mere adjunct. On
the few occasions on which she appears directly or
Indirectly, in Matthew and in Mark " there Is a
sound of reproof in the words " which Christ uses
to her or of her : Matt. xii. 46, xiii. 56 f, Mark ill.
31 ff., vi. 3 f. They do not mention her among
the women who watched In sorrow at the cruci
fixion. It has been suggested that they omitted
her name In this scene, because it was obvious that
she would be there ; but no ordinary reader of
these two Gospels would gather from them that
this was obvious.
The tone which John's references to her convey
depends mainly on the Interpretation of ii. 4.
There the Saviour says to her, according to the
almost universal interpretation, " Woman, what

84 IMPORTANCE IN LUKE'S HISTORY
have I to do with thee ? " * in a tone of reproof
and almost (It might appear) of dislike, as is seen
In the Illustrative cases which are usually quoted —
Matt, xxvii. 19, 2 Sam. xvi. 10, i Kings xvii. 18,
2 Chron. xxxv. 21, Judges xi. 12. Is this the
tone of the only Information that John gives about
the woman who lived in his house from the day
of the crucifixion till her death ? The more one
thinks of it, the more one hopes that Luther was
right when he desired to take the meaning, " what
Is that to me and to thee .^^ " f The old Egyptian
poet of the fourth or fifth century, Nonnus,
understood the words in that way, for he slightly
varies them In his metrical paraphrase, reading
Tt e/iioi, yvvai, r]l aoi avrt^ ;
Professor Blass considers that Nonnus had before
him a MS. of the fourth Gospel in which ?^ was
read where all now existing MSS. have ual, and
argues that we should replace r) in the text. We
should rather suppose that Nonnus (and probably
the whole Asian circle for whom the fourth Gospel
was primarily Intended) understood the accepted
text in the same sense as Luther advocated.
t Dr. E. Nestle in the Expository Times, 1898, p. 332.

OF THE STORY OF THE BIRTH OF CHRIST 85
In all that part of Luke's History which is
parallel with the common tradition In Matthew
and Mark, he mentions Mary only In the same
way as they do, and gives no more Information
about her than they have ; and like them, he does
not mention her presence at the crucifixion. The
only additional allusion to her that he gives in
the main body of his narrative. Is contained In the
words of an unnamed woman, blessing her who
had given birth to such a son as Jesus.* Accord
ingly, considering the interest which Luke shows
in Mary In the beginning of the Gospel, and In
Acts I. 14, where she Is mentioned as being in
steadfast companionship with the Apostles, It
seems probable that the written authorities which
he had before him told the story of the Saviour
without referring except In the most casual way
to his Mother.
It, therefore, seems unlikely that the first two
chapters of Luke depend on an older written
narrative. The quality In them Is too simple and
natural, they give too much of the nature of Mary
expressed with the art of Luke, to have passed
through the mind of an Intermediate writer. And
* xi. 27.

86 IMPORTANCE IN LUKE'S HISTORY
It Is difficult to think that any such composition
either could have existed In Luke's time, or would
have disappeared without leaving a trace behind, if
it had existed.
This result is diametrically opposite to the
prevailing opinion. It Is generally assumed as
specially clear, that we have in the narrative of the
birth and childhood of Jesus a translation from an
Aramaic narrative or from a series of Aramaic
narratives. Instead of seeing evidence of Luke's
literary power In the variations of style in different
parts of his history, many scholars see only evidence
of difference in documentary authority. As If the
person who wrote the preface I. 1-4 could be blind
to the complete change In style between i. 4 and
I. 5 ! Or as If he were unable to put the story
into his own Greek, If he desired. It is clear as
noon-day that the author deliberately aims at the
contrast In style between I. 1-4 and the following
verses. But that there must be a number of separate
documents underlying the narrative of I. and II.,
which Luke translated, seems an even more
objectionable idea. Because there are three distinct
statements about the growth of John, of the Infant

OF THE STORY OF THE BIRTH OF CHRIST 87
Jesus, and of the boy Jesus, it is assumed by some
writers that these form the conclusions of separate
documents. The slight but significant differences
between them, in which I see evidence * at once of
literary art and of the natural motherly feeling
of Mary, are treated as being mere tag-ends
oi separate narratives, which the author of this
History had not art enough to hide. He was so
incapable of working separate authorities Into a
unity, that he comes to three separate ends, because
he had three separate authorities before him.
" And the child grew and waxed strong In
spirit, and v/as In the deserts till the day of his
showing uuto Israel," I. 80.
" And the child grew and waxed strong' In
spirit, filled with wisdom ; and the grace of God
was upon him," Ii. 40.
" And Jesus Increased In wisdom and stature,
and in favour with God and man," ii. 52.
But, In truth, these three sentences mark three
stages In a continuous, unified narrative, written
with the finest feeling and art by a single author
of the loftiest literary power. They are a quite
sufficient proof to one who judges on literary
* See above, p. 77.

88 IMPORTANCE IN LUKE'S HISTORY
grounds that this Is not a composite narrative, but
the work of the same writer throughout.
If we are right In this view as to Luke's author
ity and as to the way In which that authority
reached him, viz., by oral communication, it ap
pears that either the Virgin was still living when
Luke was in Palestine during the years 57 and 58
— which Is quite a possible supposition on the
almost universally accepted assumption that she
was quite young when Jesus was born — or Luke
had conversed with some one very Intimate with
her, who knew her heart and could give him what
was almost as good as first-hand information.
Beyond that we cannot safely go ; but yet one may
venture to state the Impression — though It may be
generally considered merely fanciful — that the In
termediary, If one existed, is more likely to have
been a woman than a man. There Is a womanly
spirit In the whole narrative, which seems incon
sistent with the transmission from man to man,*
and which, moreover, is an Indication of Luke's
character : he had a marked sympathy with women.
Many other facts in his History show that
character. Luke alone mentions the " women
* For Eastern feeling read Lady Duff Gordon's Letters from Egypt.

OF THE STORY OF THE BIRTH OF CHRIST 89
which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmi
ties," who " ministered to him of their substance " ;
and he names them : he was interested in them
selves, In their gratitude to Jesus, and in their
reason for It.*
He alone tells of the woman who wet Jesus' feet
with her tears, and wiped them with her hair, and
kissed them, and anointed them — her to whom her
many sins were forgiven, because she loved much.
He does not tell her name — was it because she had
been a sinner, and he would not chronicle that fact
about a definite person ? or was his Information
defective ? f
He alone tells about the different characters of
Martha and Mary of Bethany, though he left
much for John to add.J Matthew and Mark do
not mention their names, but allude to Mary in an
obscure and almost Inaccurate way.
He alone tells of the women of Jerusalem who
followed him to his death, bewailing and lament
ing. All three synoptics mention the women
who had followed Jesus from Galilee, and stood
watching the crucifixion afar off, and how some of
" viii. 2. t vii. 36 ff. . see Note at end of chapter.
+ X. 38.

90 IMPORTANCE IN LUKE'S HISTORY
them watched where he was laid ; but Luke alone
tells how they went away and prepared spices and
ointments.* He alone tells of the nameless woman In the
crowd who blessed the mother of such a Son as
Jesus ; possibly one of those to whom Jesus after
wards said : " Blessed are the childless women, in
those days that are coming ".f
Thus time after time, Luke Is our only authority
for the service and ministration of women. He
had the tender and sympathetic feeling for women
which seems to be quite In keeping with his sur
roundings In Macedonia (where women occupied a
place of so much more honour than In Greece
proper), and which makes him record so often in
his second book the part played by women In the
diffusion of the new religion.
In the texture of the two opening chapters we
find full justification for the prominence that the
preface lays upon this episode ; and we conclude
that both the personal character of the author and
the high authority on which he claims to rest, would
prompt him to lavish special loving care on this
part of his narrative and to avoid defacing It by a
* xxiii. 27 and 56. t xxiii. 29 ; compare xi. 27.

OF THE STORY OF THE BIRTH OF CHRIST 91
serious blunder. If he made a blunder, as seems
generally admitted, that would be a sufficient refu
tation of the view which I have maintained, that
he was a great historian.
Note. — Probably the most reasonable explanation of the
remarkable discrepancies between the four passages — Matthew
xxvi. 5-13, Mark xiv. 3-9, Luke vii. 36-50, John xii. 1-9 (cp. xi.
2) — is that there were two distinct incidents : one occurred in
the house of Simon the Pharisee, and is described by Luke ;
the other occurred in the house of Martha and Mary at
Bethany, and is correctly described by John. Mark, and
following him Matthew, mix up the two and describe the
incident as occurring at Bethany in the house of Simon the
Leper. They do not name the woman, and they merety say
that she poured a box of ointment over the head of Jesus.
The attempts to harmonise John with Mark and Matthew fail
completely. John, who says that "they made him a supper
there and Martha served," obviously places the meal in
Martha's house : it seems quite absurd to suppose that she
would be serving in the house of Simon. There is an obvious
intention on John's part to correct the current account, as
seen in Matthew and Mark, and at the same time to illustrate
the character of Martha as described by Luke x. 38. Similarly,
inasmuch as the current account placed the incident two days
before the last supper, John pointedly says it occurred " six
days before the Passover ".
Probably, Mark originally fell into error from treating two
separate incidents, each perhaps only reported in part to him,
or in part forgotten by him, as being one and the same inci
dent. From one incident he caught that it had occurred in
Bethany, and from another that it occurred in the house of
Simon : accordingly he begins "while he was in Bethany in
the house of Simon the Leper, as he sat at meat ". It must

92 IMPORTANCE IN LUKE'S HISTORY, ETC.
remain uncertain whether Luke's Simon the Pharisee is the
same person as Mark's Simon the Leper, or (as seems on the
whole more probable) the incident narrated by Luke occurred
in the north, near the Sea of Galilee, in the house of Simon the
Pharisee, and Mark, connecting the incident at once with
Bethany and with Simon, put it in the house of a Simon who
lived in Bethany and was or had been a leper. It would be
obviously impossible that the feast should be held in the house
of one who was a leper; and it seems not very probable that it
would be held in his house, if he had ever been a leper.
It must be confessed that there is some temptation to
follow the Roman tradition, and treat the Lukan incident as
the same with the Johannine. Luke is vague as to the locality,
though it is raost natural to understand that it occurred in the
north. But the decisive arguraent lies in the raoral of the
tale. The reason why any incident was remembered by the
disciples la}' in the lesson which the Master had deduced from
it. The features which drew forth the lesson in Luke are
precisely those which are most difficult to reconcile with John.
To identify the two incidents, it becomes almost necessary to
suppose that the features on which the moral hinges are
errors on Luke's part. Now I should be quite ready to admit
that Luke had made raistakes about various points, provided
they were not essential to the raoral ; but those are precisely
the points that are vital, and give vitality to the whole incident.
Matthew and Mark are reconciled with John by assuraing
that they have erred in the accompaniments ; but in the vital
details they agree with him. To identify Luke and John
requires that the vital details are false in one or the other.
The considerations advanced below, p. 212 ff., if correct,
would entirely disprove the identity of the Lukan and the
Johannine incident.

PART II.
SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM

THE QUESTION AT ISSUE 95

CHAPTER V.
THE QUESTION AT ISSUE.
Neither Mark nor John mentions where Jesus
was born. Mark I. 9 says: "Jesus came from
Nazareth of Galilee and was baptised of John in
the Jordan ". In John I. 45 Philip speaks of him
as " Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph " ; and in
Acts X. 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 con
sidered 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 ex
pression, " son of Joseph," used by Philip in
John i. 45, cannot be taken as Indicating John's
own opinion, but merely as showing the current
belief. Again, John vii. '40, 41, quotes the opinions

96 THE QUESTION AT ISSUE
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
favour, 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 indubit
ably the accepted doctrine of the early Church, as

THE QUESTION AT ISSUE 97
is attested by Paul, Rom. i. 3, 2 Tim. II. 8, as well
as by the Synoptics ?
But the two points mentioned by the objectors
must go together. They who quote vii. 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
recognise the irony Involved In the first point, for
he knew the doctrine set forth by Paul and the
Synoptics. He would therefore necessarily re
cognise that the second point was also Ironical.
Accordingly, every scholar who judges litera
ture on literary grounds will recognise 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 recognised 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
7

98 THE QUESTION AT ISSUE
of Matthew, Luke and John, is that they assume
in their readers such a background of knowledge
about the life of the Saviour. 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 recognised.
Now Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was
born In Bethlehem. Matthew Ii. 6 points out that
this place of birth was the fulfilment of the pro
phecy that the Ruler of Israel was to be born there.
Yet they are also fully aware that Jesus was con
sidered by the world to be a native of Nazareth,
and that he had been brought up from infancy in
* Westcott, Gospel of St. John, p. ixxvlii.

THE QUESTION AT ISSUE 99
that city. Matthew ii. 23 again sees in the up
bringing at Nazareth the fulfilment 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 connexion 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 Judasa.
If Luke's History had not been preserved, it would
have been unhesitatingly concluded on the author
ity 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 neighbourhood ; and

100 THE QUESTION AT ISSUE
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 Intention on the part of the parents to change
their residence to Bethlehem. But the cause stated
in Ii. 4, 5, Implies a mere temporary visit ; and
the language of II. 39 shows that after the brief
visit they returned to their own city, Nazareth,
and Implies that this had always been their in
tention. 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 enrolment, or numbering, of the
population of Herod's kingdom ; and this was
made according to households and tribal descent
and local tribal connexion, 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

THE QUESTION AT ISSUE 101
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 centre.
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 unhlstorical 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

102 THE QUESTION AT ISSUE
established on incontrovertible evidence that the
whole story of ch. Ii., 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 tale
of the birth of Christ to the realm of Imaginative
fiction. Nor is It only the extreme school of
critics that reject the tale 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 : —
I. It is declared to be a demonstrated fact that
Augustus never ordered any general "Enrolment,"
or census, to be made of the whole Roman world.
Gardthausen, the latest historian of Augustus,
speaks most emphatically on this point. He goes

THE QUESTION AT ISSUE 103
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 t has never found opportunity to write
the history of that period.
* Ein allgemeiner Reichscensus war dazu weder nothig noch
zweckmassig are his exact words {Augustus und seine Zeit, Part I.,
vol. ii., p. 923).
t I do not mean to imply that Mommsen has shown any
disposition to accept Luke's evidence on this point. On the
contrary, he dismisses it as a mere mistaken inference frora
Josephus.

104 THE QUESTION AT ISSUE
In truth, the distinguished historian of Augus
tus 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 asser
tion ; 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 Pales
tine, 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 demon
strate 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 no
where 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

THE QUESTION AT ISSUE 105
Judasa, and in the country over which that king
ruled : compare i. 5 and Ii. 4. He merely men
tions 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 Hi. i, 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 popula
tion 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 inde
pendent, but ought rather to be styled a " de
pendent 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.

106 THE QUESTION AT ISSUE
3. Even if a census had been held in Palestine,
it is asserted that there would have been no neces
sity 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 Naza
reth 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 cen
sus the existing facts were recorded, and that any
disturbance of the existing distribution of popula
tion 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

THE QUESTION AT ISSUE 107
explanation which is the prime reason for mention
ing 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 dif
ferent 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 Judasa until a.d. 6-7, on the ground that that
" great census " (Acts v. 37) is described by
Josephus as something novel and unheard of, rous
ing 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
* On this see chapter vii.

108 THE QUESTION AT ISSUE
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 to how great an extent these four
arguments against the "Enrolment" 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

THE QUESTION AT ISSUE 109
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 i b.c. There
fore 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 Judasa".
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
I B.C. is incomplete, depending on an estimate of

110 THE QUESTION AT ISSUE
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 favour of his having held com
mand 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 con
clusive 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 QUESTION AT ISSUE 111
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 : —
I . 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, every
thing is affected.
As to the third alternative, besides the general
considerations already urged,* see to what a
dilemma it reduces its supporters ! They acknow
ledge 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 In-
? See p. 45 ff.

112 THE QUESTION AT ISSUE
accurate 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 dis
credit 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 i.,
Ii., can never be demonstrated. There will always
remain a large step to be taken on faith. A
marvellous 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
marvellous event are true, and that, in things
which can be tested, he does not fall below the

THE QUESTION AT ISSUE 113
Standard of accuracy demanded from the ordinary
historians. Again, those who hold Luke's statement about
the enrolment 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
Enrolment" made by Quirinius In a.d. 6-8, he
erroneously connected this enrolment 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 con
fusion and misunderstanding of some other his
torian'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.
8

114 THE QUESTION AT ISSUE
But It Is necessary to reaHse clearly how much Is
Involved In the assumption that such an error was
made. It Is implied not merely that Luke mis
placed that important event — fundamental In the
Roman organisation of Palestine — " the great cen
sus " ; 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 connexion, 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 pur
pose, 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 inven
tions .? What condemnation could be too strong for
his shameful conduct .? What words too sharp to
characterise his Imposture .''
I put the question to any reasonable person : Is
it consistent with human nature that a writer who

THE QUESTION AT ISSUE 115
claims to be earnestly setting forth the simple facts
should begin with so impudent a series of fabrica
tions .'' 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 con
nexion 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 stat-

116 THE QUESTION AT ISSUE
ing 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. See p. 46.
Thirdly, Luke devotes much care to the rela
tions 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 state
ment on that subject to find a place In his book,
he makes himself responsible for it In the fullest
sense.

LUKE'S ACCOUNT OF THE ENROLMENT 117

CHAPTER VI.
LUKE'S ACCOUNT OF THE ENROLMENT.
Luke wrote for readers belonging to the civilised
Grasco - 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 II. i. 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, ii. 1-4, which we give
according to the Revised Version : —
Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a
decree from Cassar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled.
This was the first enrolment, made when Quirinius was governing
Syria. And all went to enrol themselves, every one to his own
city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city

118 LUKE'S ACCOUNT
of Nazareth, into Juda:a, to the city of David, which is called
Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David — to
enrol himself with Mary his wife.
It might seem hardly necessary to state that In
this passage of Luke the term " world," o'lKoviuivri,
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

OF THE ENROLMENT 119
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 recognise that
Luke Ii. I 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 organised
Roman provinces. But, further, Luke evidently
considered that it Included the dependent king
doms, such as Judasa, 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 ap
preciated 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, Judasa 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

120 LUKE'S ACCOUNT
of the Roman empire as it was when he was
writing about a.d. 19. He describes it as extend
ing 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 sub
ject to the Romans certain dynasts,* and chiefs, and
priests : and these live according to certain national
laws. He distinguishes this whole empire, contain
ing these various territories and governments and
provinces, from the non-Roman and barbarian
world. He declares that In the part of the em
pire 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
* This title was given to certain princes, e.g., those who ruled
Ketis in Cilicia Tracheia.

OF THE ENROLMENT 121
of territories as " the possessions of the Romans,"
Ta TQVTWi' ; he speaks of avfinaarjQ ¦^il>paQ rrjc viro
"Pw/uai'oic ; and he describes how the Romans ob
tained them, Trpo(jiKTr]aavTO.
Moreover, It is impossible to suppose that Au
gustus, when he defeated Mark Antony, abandoned
the suzerainty which the latter had certainly exer
cised over many lands, and gave away to Indepen
dent 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 irra
tional 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 ex
presses 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 sub-

122 LUKE'S ACCOUNT
ject kings, and not free from the suzerainty of
Rome. Applan* 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 aban
don 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 inten
tion 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
* Bell. Civil., v., 75.

OF THE ENROLMENT 123
the natural features of the land lent themselves
readily to brigandage and piracy. As these coun
tries 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 civilisation was
imparted to the population by the kings, who
built cities and introduced the Grseco-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,* and he means
that Augustus ordered enrolments to be regularly
* aiToypd(pe(rdai. iratrav r^v oiKovfj.evTjv.

124 LUKE'S ACCOUNT
taken, according to the strict and proper usage of
the present tense. What Augustus did was to lay
down the principle of systematic "enrolment" 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 enrolment should be made,
unconsciously changes the expression and uses the
aorist * where Luke uses the present tense. Simi
larly, when Luke tells that Joseph went up for
enrolment on one definite occasion, he uses the
aorlst.f Thereafter the text of Luke proceeds naturally :
" This was the first enrolment, while Quirinius was
administering Syria ; and all persons proceeded to
go for enrolment each to his own city ". Here
the presential tenses J are necessitated by the
sense : all persons, individually and severally,
repaired to their proper cities for their respective
enrolment. In the series of enrolments, which
were inaugurated by the orders of Augustus, the
Qirrre a-jroypa(pTjyat iraffav r^y uir' avrhv y^VQp.evf}V yrjv Kal %v irpdnrjy
elxof "Pa/jicuoi, Malalas, p. 226.
+ ave^f} and airoypd^audat.
I A-:roypd<pe(r8ai and iiropevovTO.

OF THE ENROLMENT 125
first was the one with which the story is con
cerned ; and Joseph, like the rest, went up from
Galilee out of the city of Nazareth into Judasa,
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 enrolments 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

126 LUKE'S ACCOUNT
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 per
ceptible 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,
unmentloned and unheeded by historians, have
resulted from epigraphic and archsological in
vestigation, that it Is no longer so hazardous to

OF THE ENROLMENT 127
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 enrolment in the Syrian
province, and Christ was born actually during the
time when the first enrolment of the series was
being made in Palestine.
We observe that Luke knew about more than
one " enrolment " or census (to use the strict
Roman term). In II. 2 he speaks of a certain
census as " the first" ; In Acts v. 37 he mentions
" the census," i.e., the great census, meaning the
epoch-making census taken about a.d. 7, when
Judasa 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 unhesi
tatingly 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

128 LUKE'S ACCOUNT
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 Inter
preted them. He speaks of the occasion when
first they ordered Enrolments to be made.*
It Is hardly possible to avoid Inferring from
these words of Clement that he knew of some
system of enrolments, 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 vii. that
Clement, as residing In Egypt, was familiar with
the Egyptian system of periodic enrolments. He
could hardly avoid writing with this system in his
mind, and his words imply beyond a doubt that he
* ore TrpuTov ^KeAivirav aTroypa<pas yeveaSm, Strom., i., 21, 147,

OF THE ENROLMENT 129
thought of some system of enrolments 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
enrolments was maintained In Egypt and In Syria.
Again, Clement expressly says that the system
of enrolments 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
enrolment ; 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 enrolments which he
saw round him in Egypt, and which he thought
or knew to be also practised in Syria, began from

l30 LUKE'S ACCOUNT OF THE ENROLMENT
Augustus and was made according to the orders of
Augustus. A suggestion has been made that the Indictlonal
Periods of fifteen years, which formed so Impor
tant 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 Indictlonal Period. But it can be shown
positively that the Indlctional System did not
prevail under the early empire. The Indlctlons
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 enrolment 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.
* Mr. Grenfell notes, "it is absolutely certain that the indic-
tions began in a.d. 312, and not before," as is shown by one of
the Rainer papyri.

ENROLMENT BY HOUSEHOLDS IN EGYPT 131

CHAPTER VII.
ENROLMENT BY HOUSEHOLDS IN EGYPT.
Recently, three different scholars announced
about the same time, and independently of one
another, the discovery that periodical enrolments
were made In Egypt under the Roman empire,
and that the period was not of fifteen years, as In
the later system of indlctlons, but of fourteen years.
The same Greek term is used in the Egyptian
documents and In Luke to Indicate the census :
they were called " Enrolments," Apographai.
Mr. Kenyon of the British Museum had slightly
the priority in briefly declaring that these " Enrol
ments " 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 v/hat Is here stated on the subject.
* Kenyon in Classical Review, March, 1893, p. 110 ; Wilcken in
Hermes, 1893, p. 203 ff. ; Viereck in Philologus, 1893, p. 219 ff.
There is a short supplementary paper by Wilcken in Philologus,
1893, p. 563.

132 ENROLMENT BY
The facts relating to the " Enrolments " 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
enrolment of 89-90, and so on. The purpose
evidently was to Include In each enrolment 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 enrolments were made for the years
ending In the summer of a.d. 90, 104, 118, 132 and
so on till 230. An enrolment 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
* Confirmed by Mr. Kenyon's new discovery, see p. 135.

HOUSEHOLDS IN EGYPT 133
census was carried out by Roman officials, and
formed part of the Imperial system of adminis
tration. It was the habit of the Romans In the
East to adapt their arrangements to the cus
tom 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.

134 ENROLMENT BY
Accordingly, instead of mentioning the enrol
ment for the Egyptian year falling In a.d. 89-90,
we shall call It the enrolment 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 enumera
tion began after the periodic year was ended,
though the enumeration is called in the documents
the enrolment of the past (periodic) year. Usually
the enrolment paper Is dated late In the following
year ; people were allowed to make their declara
tion 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 Ves
pasian a system of periodical enrolments 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 Imper-

HOUSEHOLDS IN EGYPT 135
fectlon and lacuna are the rule In every depart
ment 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 frag
ment of papyrus has been found to attest a fact,
that therefore the fact did not occur. The argu
ment a silentio, always a dangerous one, is especially
dangerous where papyrus-fragments 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, how
ever, worth something, and also, I think, about
the Ptolemaic period." The silence of the papyri
about the period before a.d. 76 therefore consti
tutes no argument that the periodic enrolments
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 docu
ment * which mentions the enrolment for the
*CCLX. 78, 79, and CCLXI. 31, 32,

136 ENROLMENT BY
eighth year of Nero, a.d. 61-62. Mr. Kenyon
thinks that it Implies also still earlier enrolments
(see Note on p. 148). This Important dis
covery 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. [Enrolment of a.d. 20, see Preface, p. x.j
The question, then, must be put — at what time
and through whose organising initiative Is the
Roman series of enrolments 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 enrolments formed a funda
mental part of the government of Egypt : these
enrolments 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

HOUSEHOLDS IN EGYPT 137
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 organisation 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
mitted 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 fore
thought 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 skilfully collected and
marshalled by a long succession of writers on this
subject — his general survey of the whole empire :
the rationes imperii, " a sort of balance sheet pub
lished periodically": the libellus or breviarium totius
imperii, a compendium of useful statistics about
the kingdoms, the provinces, the allies, etc.

138 ENROLMENT BY
These show how carefully and methodically
Augustus organised his splendid machinery of
government on the basis of accurate, minute
and complete knowledge of everything that con
cerned the subject peoples, and make it probable
that the system of periodic enrolments, 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
enrolments 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 organisation of Egypt was
brought to a very high degree of perfection long
before the Romans entered the country, and in
crease the probability that the germ or even the
complete form of almost every detail of administra
tion 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-Enrolment —
constitutes an argument against Its being an in
stitution of the Ptolemaic period ; whereas valua-

HOUSEHOLDS IN EGYPT 139
tion papers of the class described on p. 144 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,t resembling the Household-Enrolment
papers more than the Valuation papers, and
dated b.c. 19 and 18, before the Periodic House
hold-Enrolment system was organised.
The probability remains that Augustus origi
nated a new system in Egypt of Periodic Enrol-
ment-by-Households, developing some previously
existing system of numbering the population.
In the third place, as we saw in the preceding
chapter, p. 129, Clement of Alexandria believed
that the system of enrolments 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 enrolments come down from the organisa-
* F. LI. Griffith, Law Quart. Rev., 1898, p. 44 f.
t Grenfell, An Alex. Erotic Papyrus, etc., Nos. 45 and 46.

140 ENROLMENT BY
tion 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 accord
ing to their tenure of the tribunicia potestas, which
constituted them " Champions of the Commons " ;
Augustus received the tribunlclan power on 27th
June, D.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 Enrolment-Cycle was arranged according to
the official years of Augustus's reign, is conclusive
In favour of the view that Augustus Inaugurated
the system of periodical enrolments.
This coincidence, also, shows with almost com
plete 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 con
sidered 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 Enrolment-Cycle
been an Egyptian matter simply. It Is in the last

HOUSEHOLDS IN EGYPT 141
degree Improbable that it would have been arranged
according to the years of the tribunlclan power.
On the other hand, that was the natural system
in general Imperial matters. It was the only
method of reckoning which was known univer
sally throughout the empire : it was employed in
every official statement of the Emperor's title : it
was sometimes used even In dating private in
scriptions.* The use of this epoch, further, proves In all
probability that the Enrolment was, as Luke says,
actually held first for_the_yearjB,,c^^__rt^ould 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
enrolment for the current year. Hence we find a
different style of enrolment paper used In Egypt
In the years b.c 19 and i8.t
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
* See e.g. Varia II. in Classical Review, Oct., 1898.
+ See p. 139.

142 ENROLMENT BY
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 i 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
"enrolments" In Egypt. As the system Is fixed
according to the year b.c 23, In which the fully
formed constitutional Princlpate was organised 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
enrolments 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
* Rom. Staatsrecht, ii., p. 212 f.

HOUSEHOLDS IN EGYPT 143
taxation should be proportionate to wealth was a
Roman principle, and without frequent revaluation
of property it was impossible to secure a fair ap
portionment of taxation. Augustus fully recognised
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 in
corporated 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 valua
tion of property. In this study we use the terms
" valuation " or " rating " and " enrolment ".
* One exception, p. 161.

144 ENROLMENT BY
But the system of periodic enrolments in Egypt Is
quite different from the system of rating and valua
tion. The latter system also existed In Egypt ; many
census papers are preserved among the papyri, and
Wilcken gives several examples of them on pp.
23 1-240 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 f 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 cnrojpaipopai Is used in both
kinds of papyri, and both operations seem to have
been termed Apographai. But the periodic enrol
ment papers are distinguished by other criteria
'* Mr. Grenfell notes, ' ' for ' seem to have been ' you might say
' were ' • there are hundreds of instances to show it ".
t Mr. Kenyon notes, " returns of live stock are separate ".

HOUSEHOLDS IN EGYPT 145
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 enrolment they are in
tended for ; and they always use the phrase
" Enrolment-by-Household," awoypa(p^ri kut o'lKiav.
These periodic enrolments according to the Four
teen- Years'-Cycle * were therefore closely con
nected with the existing households, and served
as basis for an enumeration of the total popula
tion. This operation obviously corresponds much
more closely than the other kind of Egyptian
census to the " enrolment " alluded to by Luke ;
and we shall therefore always allude to It as the
enrolment system, or, more accurately, enrolment-
by-household. The enrolment papers were filled up and sent In
to the proper official by the heads of households.
In the enrolment paper, the householder specified
the house, or part of a house, which belonged to
him ; he declared that he was formally enrolling
* The Romans, who counted both initial and final years in
each period, would have called it a Fifteen-Years'-Cycle ; it was
held in years 1, 15, 29, etc. We call that a Cycle of fourteen years,
10

146 ENROLMENT BY
himself and his family for the house-to-house
enrolment 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 enrolment 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 num
bered 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.

HOUSEHOLDS IN EGYPT 147
The Intention of this system of enrolment by
households has been Investigated by Wilcken. It
turnlshed a complete enumeration of the population
of Egypt ; both provincials and resident Romans
had to fill up their enrolment 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
lacllltated the conscription ; and finally thev 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, Ii., 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
* So Kenyon writes correcting Wilcken's published statement.
In Syria women, as well as men, paid; and the age was fourteen
for men, twelve for women, until sixty-five, Ulpian, Dig.,-L. 15, 3.

148 ENROLMENT BY HOUSEHOLDS IN EGYPT
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 evi
dence, have revealed two most important and
hitherto unsuspected facts.
(i) In some parts at least of the empire
the enrolment 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 enrolment by households took place
periodically, according to a cycle arranged accord
ing to the years ot the reign of Augustus In
Imperial, but not In Egyptian, reckoning. Pro
bably this system was Introduced later than 18 b.c
(see p. 141).
Note. — Papyrus Br. Mus. CCLX. is a poll-tax register of
A.D. 7Z-3, based on the Household-Enrolment of 61-2; and
references to older poll-tax registers are made, which imply
previous Enrolments. In fact the register is part of an
existing system of some standing. [The Household-Enrol
ment of A.D. 20 has just been discovered : see Preface, p. x.]

THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C. 149

CHAPTER VIII.
THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C.
In the preceding chapter we have seen that. In all
probability, Augustus inaugurated a series of en
rolments In Egypt. Now, according to Luke,
Augustus laid down the principle that " enrol
ments " 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 connexion 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 in
cident of the flight Into Egypt, which a writer

150 THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT INJS B.C.
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 enrolments,
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, pp. 129 and 140, con
firm this presumption.
Other considerations, also, prove that some
attempt was made in Syria, whether systemati
cally 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
¦* Absolutely the only reason for thinking it to be a forgery was
that it mentioned the census of Quirinius, and therefore seemed
to give some support to Luke. But as this might be the historical
census of Quirinius in a.d. 7, the support was very slight and
indirect ; and, if a forger were inventing a support for Luke, he
would hardly be content with such a small result for his work.
See Mommsen in Ephenieris Epigraphiea, iv, , p. 538, on the re
discovery of the stone.

THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C. 151
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.
iEmilius 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 enrolment 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 Ccesaris Syria, 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

152 THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C.
and valuation in Palestine. We, on our side, are,
for a different reason, bound to maintain that
Quirinius ordered this enrolment of Apameia (and
of all the other states of Syria) to be made in a.d.
7, as will appear in chs. ix. and xi.
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 [avSptg). 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 t gives the population of Egypt, Alex
andria excepted, as 7,500,000. Adding 500,000
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.
* Suidas, S.W. 'A^jroypa(f>^ and Avyovcrros.
\ BeU. Jud.,u.,K,i.

THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C. 153
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 enrolments.
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
E.G. 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
Euseblus has it as 4,164,000. In the third census,
Euseblus probably gave the correct total ; but
Jerome In his Latin version and the Armenian
translator have both gone wrong In rendering
Euseblus's words. Suidas, finding this total in
Euseblus, took it as representing the total popula
tion of the empire, instead of the sum of cives
Romani, an error which was easily made after the
time of Caracalla, when all free citizens of the
empire v/ere cives P^omani. Further, like Jerome,

154 THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C.
he misunderstood the numbers in Euseblus. Syn-
cellus 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 " Enrolments " according to the
Fourteen- Years'-Cycle were made in Syria and
elsewhere. According to Luke, the first enrol
ment 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 enrolment
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 " enrolment " would naturally begin to be
made, If a Cycle was observed ; for this enrolment
was Intended, as has been stated already, to include
all children born In 9 b.c. Now Tertullian declares
that an " enrolment " was made by Sentlus Satur-

THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C. 155
ninus, 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 ".f He had the authority of
Roman documents that Sentlus Saturnlnus 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 di- 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 enrolment period fell in 9 b.c, which
was the first enrolment ; and Roman authorities,
* See p. 247.
t De suis enim instrtimentis sacularia prohari necesse est (de
Cor. 7).

156 THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C.
either official documents or historians, showed him
that Sentlus Saturnlnus 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 Saturnlnus. 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 inde
pendent witness In favour of Luke, so far as
concerns the reality of a Syrian enrolment 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 enrolments, 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 adminis
tration. 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
* Nat. Hist., vii., 48 (159). See below, p. 163 f.

THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C. 157
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 mis
lead ; 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
marvellous. The discrepancy between Tertullian, who seems
to connect the birth of Christ with the enrolment
of Saturnlnus, and Luke, who connects that event
with the enrolment of Quirinius, will engage our
attention in chapter xl. For the moment our
purpose Is to show that the Egyptian enrolment
periods were observed In Syria and elsewhere.
But the existence of such a discrepancy is the
conclusive proof that TertuUian 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 " enrolments "

158 THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C.
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 argu
ment 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 organisation,
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 con
nected 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 as the first year
in which the new municipal system was actually In
existence.

THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C. 159
The next periodic year was 6 a.d., and the en
rolment 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 valua
tion of Palestine, as Josephus records. Judasa
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
organisation. " The great enrolment " might. It
Is true, be plausibly explained as due merely to
the necessities of administration in a newly Incorpo
rated 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 7 a.d.,
as we have gathered from the inscription of
TEmlllus Secundus, quoted on p. 151. The
natural inference from the known facts is
that two operations, one corresponding to the
Egyptian periodic enrolment and one corre
sponding to the Egyptian annual census and
valuation, occurred in Palestine In 7 a.d. ; and

160 THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C.
that the periodic enrolment 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 " enrolments " 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 Casslus's account of the
various numberings made by Augustus Is wrong
In almost every case, and his assertion about a
census in 4 a.d. cannot be credited on his sole

THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C. 161
authority. Mommsen, therefore, rejects It as an
error of Dion's.*
The next periodic year fell in 20 a.d. ; but no QulJ f^'f^
evidence survives to shqw^jhat it was observed In /9^/
any part of the Roman empire. Perhaps after the
numbering of Roman citizens In 14, it was con
sidered unnecessary by Tiberius to hold another in
20 ; and our authorities hardly ever mention any
numberings except of cives Romani.
The following census period began with 34
A.D. ; and It would appear that the numbering was
held in the Province Syria In 35, as was usual.
This we gather indirectly from the fact that
an attempt was made by King Archelaos to enforce
a census after the Roman style In his kingdom of
Cilicia Tracheia. Now this kingdom was always
considered as a dependency of the Province Syria ; t
and, when any Roman Interference in Its affairs
was needed, the Syrian governor marched an army
Into the Tracheiotis. Archelaos's attempt, there
fore, implies that the census of Syria was taken In
35, and was observed also In the dependent king
dom of Tracheiotis. It may be regarded as
* Mommsen, Mo-num. Ancyran., ed. ii., p. 37.
t Strictly the province was termed Syria et Cilicia et Phcenice,
11

162 THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C.
obviously true that Archelaos acted under Roman
orders, for the Imposition of a Roman custom on
the free Clliclans, as If they had been inhabitants of
a Roman province, was a curtailment of his rights,
which he was not likely to initiate of his own
accord, and which a monarch would not allow
except under compulsion. But nations which
were not thoroughly Romanised strongly objected
to the census as a mark of subjection to the
foreigner and as a serious step forward in the
process of Romanising their country. King
Archelaos was considered by his subjects to be
weakly helping to Impose on them the Roman
yoke with his own hand. Disturbances broke out
among the Kletai,* the leading people of Cilicia
Tracheia ; and, after the power of King Archelaos
had proved Insufficient to quell the rebellion, the
presence of Roman troops was required ; and
finally, In 36 a.d., Vitelllus, the governor of Syria,
sent an army to his aid.
As In " the great enrolment " of Palestine in
7 A.D., there was made in Cilicia in 35 a.d. both a
numbering of the population and a valuation of
* Tacitus, Annals, vi., 41, and Wilhelm, Arch. Epigr. Mittheilun-
gen, 1894, p. 1 ff.

THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C. 163
their property. A simple numbering of the people
might not be felt so grievous, but a valuation of
property seemed to be the beginning of incorpora
tion in a province.
Some scholars understand that the census among
the Kletai was held because they had been subjected
to the Roman authority and incorporated In the
province. But Tacitus distinctly states that they
were subject to Archelaos, and continued to hold
out against his troops. His language Is quite ex
plicit, and could be misinterpreted only through
prejudice. Moreover, If the Kletai had been In
corporated In the province, that would show even
more conclusively that an enrolment of the province
was made In 34-5 a.d.
The next periodic year fell In 48 ; and Tacitus
mentions that the Emperor Claudius held a census
of the Roman citizens In that year, and numbered
6,944,060. He was personally engaged as censor
in the operations at Ostia in the middle of October,
48 A.D. The Individual householders recorded
their age In these numberings, just as they did In
the Egyptian enrolments, for Pliny mentions that
a citizen of Bononia stated his age as 150 ; Clau
dius thereupon ordered that his record in previous

164 THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C.
census should be examined, and his statements were
found to be consistent.* This fact, mentioned Inci
dentally by Pliny, proves that several census had
previously been taken, and suggests that there was
a system and a definite plan in the enumerations.
No one who considers the method of the Romans
and the orderly character of all their work, will
regard It as probable that the taking of these
general numberings was left purely to the caprice
of the emperor. Some plan and order must have
been aimed at, though the weakness or caprice of
the emperors might occasionally disturb the order.
The existence of some underlying plan is Inexorably
demanded ; and if the plan which existed In Egypt
was not common to the whole empire, one asks
what was the plan elsewhere, and why the empire
followed separate plans In different regions.
Claudius evidently made his numbering a few
months too early, before the periodic year was
ended. The succeeding census period, beginning in 62
A.D., is not known to have been observed in any
part of the Roman world except Egypt (where Mr.
* Tacitus, Annals, xi., 25, 31 ; Suetonius, Claud., 16 ; Pliny,
Nat. Hist., yii.,i8 {159),

THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C. 165
Kenyon's new discovery has revealed it) ; and the
subsequent one, 76 a.d., was anticipated in Italy
by two years, for Vespasian and Titus held the
censorship In 73 and 74,* and made an enumera
tion of Roman citizens.
These facts, most of them only slight In them
selves, establish In conjunction a strong case that
the periods of the Egyptian enrolments were fre
quently coincident with the holding of census In
some other parts of the empire ; and thus the
presumption Is strengthened that the Egyptian
Fourteen-Years'-Cycle has its root in a principle of
wider application. This brings us very near to
Luke's statement that Augustus laid down a general
principle of taking census of the whole Roman
world. The supposition that his statement is true
has now ceased to be out of keeping with extra-
scriptural evidence. On the contrary, Luke's
statement supplies the missing principle which
holds together and explains and makes consistent
aU the rest of the evidence. When Luke's evi
dence Is held correct, the other recorded facts fall
* Beginning April 73 (according to Chambalu, de magistral.
Flaviorum, quoted by Goyau, Chronologic de I'Emp. Rom., s. a.),
their office lasted eighteen months. See Pliny, Nat. Hist., vii., 49
(162).

166 THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C.
into line with It, and are seen to be the working
of one general principle. Though weakness some
times failed to carry out the principle, and though
in other cases the time was anticipated a little, yet
the recorded facts show a clear tendency to con
form to the Cycle.
In a number of cases nothing except the census
of Roman citizens is recorded. Almost all Romans,
with characteristic Roman pride, regarded a census
of the subject population as beneath the dignity
of historical record. Augustus himself, In that
famous record of his achievements, which is
commonly known as the Monumentum Ancyranum,
mentions only his census of Roman citizens.
Distinct evidence exists that the first and second
periodic enrolments were carried out In Syria ; but
the Emperor thought them unworthy of notice In
his review of his services to the State. Similarly
it is only by Indirect Inference, through the acci
dent that a rebellion was provoked, that we learn
of the fourth enrolment in Syria. The Romans
of that period did not agree with our estimate of
what was most Important In their history ; and we
must be very chary of drawing negative inferences
merely from their silence. Evidence about the

THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C. 167
details of the Augustan system of provincial ad
ministration had almost completely perished, until
Inscriptions began to reveal a few isolated facts.
Hence the silence of Augustus about the scheme
of an Imperial census affords no argument against
his having projected such a scheme. In his review
of his career, Augustus says nothing about the
re-organisation of the provincial administration
(which, to our judgment. Is almost the most Im
portant fact In his career) ; he mentions nothing
about the provinces except the colonies which he
founded In Pisidia, Gallia, etc., and the colonies
are mentioned simply because they were settlements
of Roman citizens. He therefore could not, In
accordance with his own plan, mention the scheme
of numbering the subject population ; he only
speaks of the numbering of the Romans. More
over, the principle of periodic enrolments appears
not to have been, perhaps, carried out completely,
and could not claim a place In the list of the
emperor's achievements.
The most important fact is that we have clear
evidence, quite Independent of Luke, that the first,
second and fourth periodic enrolments were ob
served In the Province Syria. The evidence for

168 THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C.
the first is Christian, and is therefore commonly
set aside, except when the " critical " — or rather
uncritical — theologian desires to bring out that
these Christians don't even agree with one another :
then he quotes Tertullian.
The evidence for the second periodic enrolment
In Syria lies In the chance preservation of an in
scription, in which a Roman officer recorded his
service at Apameia ; but this evidence was long
discredited as a forgery, made in modern times
by some person who wanted to illustrate Luke,
and pretended to have copied the inscription
from a stone. The demolition of a house In
Venice revealed the stone, and justified the in
scription. The evidence for the fourth periodic inscription
Is found In Tacitus. Had the authority been a
mere Christian, his words would have been ridi
culed and disregarded.
But three occurrences are sufficient to show what
was the law of recurrence. If the other evidence
Is enough to suggest that some system was re
cognised in Syria, then the three dates show that
the Fourteen-Years'-Cycle was the system which
was followed there.

THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C. 169
Further, we observe that In all three cases it Is
only by a mere accident that we learn about the
occurrence of a census — a casual reference In Ter
tullian's disputation against a heretic : the chance
preservation of an inscription In Venice : the fact
that a disturbance in a dependent kingdom was
too serious for the king's strength, and required
the intervention of the Roman arms, and thus rose
to the level of dignity required for mention In
Tacltus's Annals. The ordinary class of inscrip
tions on stone does not mention events of this
kind, except through an occasional chance, as, e.g.,
that some private individual was specially con
cerned with the taking of a census (like vEmlllus
Secundus). But we cannot expect many such
chances, as have preserved the memory of the three
enrolments In Syria.
In Syria there existed the same reasons which
are considered by Wilcken to have required the
periodic enrolment by households in Egypt. In
both countries there existed a poll-tax (which was
not a general Roman * Institution) : conscription
and imposition of various burdens In the State
service were common to all parts of the empire :
* See p. 147.

170 THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C.
hence the periodic enrolments would enable the
machinery of government to work with much
greater ease and certainty In Syria.
Any rational and scholarly criticism must accept
the conclusion : There was a system of periodic
enrolment In the Province Syria, according to a
Fourteen-Years'-Cycle (In the modern expression —
Fifteen-Years'-Cycle In the Roman form), and the
first enrolment was made In the year 8 b.c (strictly
the Syrian year beginning in the spring* of 8 B.C.).
The fact that there exists no evidence of such
frequent taking of census in Syria, as we suppose,
constitutes no disproof of our theory. The evi
dence has perished. Twenty years ago no one
dreamed to what a degree of minuteness and per
fection the registration ot Inhabitants, property
and values In Egypt was carried by the Romans.
The evidence seemed to have perished. Now the
graves and rubbish-heaps of Egypt have begun to
give up their evidence ; and our knowledge of
Roman provincial administration has entered on a
new stage. But elsewhere we cannot hope for such
discoveries as in Egypt, for other climates are too
moist to allow paper to survive. But the analogy
* See pp. 133, 142.

THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C. 171
of Egyptian administration is a strong argument
as regards Syria ; and, If Augustus Instituted
periodic enrolments In Egypt, the evidence of
Luke, Implying that he ordered a similar system
In the whole empire, and that the system was
carried into effect in Syria, has every probability In
its favour and will be accepted by every candid
historian. We have the evidence of Justin Martyr,* a
native of Syria, writing about 150 a.d., that the
tabulated information gathered from the periodic
enrolments of the province was preserved, and
might be consulted by any who doubted the
evidence of Luke. Writing to the emperor, the
Cffisars, the senate, and the people of Rome, he
tells them that they can learn the facts regarding
the birth of Christ from the registers made
under Quirinius. It Is obvious that Justin
had not himself consulted the registers. He
merely knew that they existed and might be
consulted. The facts he takes from Luke, and
challenges all to disprove them by appeal to the
registers. * Apolog., i., 34. Felix, governor of Egypt, is mentioned in it,
and he governed Egypt about 150.

172 THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C.
Similarly Tertullian* appeals to the letter of
Marcus Aurehus, In which he had informed the
senate of the Important service rendered by
Christian soldiers In the German war. He had
not seen the letter himself, but he knew that all
such documents addressed to the senate were
preserved, and challenged his readers to consult the
letter for themselves.
It would be quite fair to quote Tertullian as
evidence (if any evidence were needed) that such
Imperial letters were preserved In official records ;
and similarly it Is quite fair to quote Justin
as evidence that the registers of the Syrian enrol
ments were preserved and might be consulted by
those who wished.
Mr. Kenyon writes that natives of Egypt refer
to previous enrolments as evidence of relationship,
etc. Josephus, Vit., I., apparently Is quoting
similar enrolment-registers, when he speaks of the
evidence for his family history.
Justin himself had no desire or need to consult
the registers In order to be convinced. It was
quite enough for him that Luke recorded the
facts ; and he asked no further evidence. As to
* Apolog., 5.

THE SYRIAN ENROLMENT IN 8 B.C. 173
questions of date and officials he felt no interest.
Perhaps he may have Interpreted Luke's words
as referring to Quirinius's second government of
Syria in 6-7 a.d.; but he styles him procurator
of Palestine, which does not suit that or any
office held by him, for the procuratorship was
an equestrian position, while Quirinius was of
senatorial rank. But it tended to convince the
Romans that the Gospels as a whole were true,
if these little details were found to be correctly
stated ; and therefore he challenges his readers
to verify them for themselves.

174 KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT

CHAPTER IX.
KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT.
The first enrolment In Syria was made In the year
8-7 B.C., but a consideration of the situation
In Syria and Palestine about that time will show
that the enrolment In Herod's kingdom was
probably delayed for some time later.
Herod occupied a delicate and difficult position
on the throne of Judasa. On the one hand he had
to comply with what was required of him by the
Imperial policy ; he was governing for the Romans
a part of the empire, and he was bound to spread
western customs and language and civilisation
among his subjects, and fit them for their position
In the Roman world. Above all, the prime
requirement was that he must maintain peace and
order ; the Romans knew well that no civilising
process could go on, so long as disorder and
disturbance and Insecurity existed In the country.
Herod's duty was to keep the peace and naturalise
the Grasco-Roman civilisation in Palestine.

KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT 175
On the other hand, he must soothe the feelings
and accommodate himself to the prejudices of the
jealous and suspicious people whom he governed.
He could not hope to keep the peace among them,
unless he humoured their prejudices. They hated
and despised Roman Ideas, and they were Intensely
attached to their own customs. Their customs
had all a religious foundation, and they could not
comply with foreign requirements without doing
violence to their deep-rooted pride of religion and
their lofty contempt for the pagans by whom they
were surrounded. Everything Roman was to
them a heathen abomination ; and. If Herod
seemed to them to be forcing on them anything
Roman, Insurrection was almost certain to follow.
But It was absolutely necessary to prevent insur
rection, which was likely to make Augustus quite
as angry with him as with the insurgents.
On the whole, Herod had been successful In his
ambiguous position. He built many fortresses
and many cities of the Graeco-Roman type, with
temples of the Greeco-Roman gods, beginning
with the god incarnate, the emperor himself, whose
refusal to accept Divine honours was not very
much regarded in the eastern lands. That was the

176 KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT
approved method of spreading the Grasco-Roman
civilisation. The " city " was originally a Greek
creation, and every city tended towards the
cosmopolitan type of the Roman empire. Edu
cation, luxury, commerce, imitation of western
manners, dislike for the national and "barbarian"
manners, use of the Greek language, were encour
aged In the crowded and feverish life of cities ; and
the national piety and the national exclusiveness
found It more difficult to maintain themselves In
their old strength.
But Jerusalem was left still Hebrew in spite of
the theatre and amphitheatre and fortress called
Antonia, which Herod built. There was really a
double life in the ancient city, and Herod put on
the appearance of fostering both. If he adorned
the city with splendid buildings after the Greek
fashion, he also was careful to rebuild the Jewish
Temple with far greater magnificence than of old.
He would show himself a true king of the Jews.
He pretended to conform to the Jewish Law, and
did so In some matters of form and ceremony.
He refused to permit his sister Salome's marriage
with the Arabian Syllasus, unless the latter con-^
formed to the Jewish Uw,

KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT 177
Herod never entered the holy place, as Pompey
did. He allowed the rehgious ritual free play.
He never attempted to prevent any of the priestly
ceremonial. He never assumed to himself any of
the priestly functions. When the temple was
being built, only the priests were used in construct
ing the sanctuary, so that the holy place might
never be profaned by any other than a priest's foot
or hand. He avoided heathen emblems and
devices on his coins and on the buildings of
Jerusalem. He permitted the Sanhedrin to con
tinue during his reign, and to exercise a shadow of
its ancient power — doubtless only In religious
matters, and subject, doubtless, to constraint from
the ever-present thought of what would be the re
sult to themselves. If they did anything that Herod
disliked. Thus Herod kept up the appearance of main
taining national feeling, of defending the Jewish
cause against all foreigners, and of respecting
national ideas and prejudices. He governed his
action on the natural and obvious principle. He
did not attempt to force the Jews to do anything
that was distinctly anti-national and anti-Jewish ;
he maintained their religious ceremonial, and
12

178 KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT
refrained from obtruding on them personally
anything that was offensive to them. The theatres
and other pagan abominations were for the
accursed heathen ; but the Jews could do as they
pleased about such unholy things. They tolerated
Herod, and he did not outrage them.*
But, in spite of all his care to comply with the
Roman requirements, towards the end of his life
Herod fell Into disgrace with Augustus. He had
made war on the Arabians ; and Syllasus, the
Arabian minister, who was In Rome, obtained the
ear and the confidence of Augustus, and persuaded
him that Herod had made war on his own
authority without Roman permission. Augustus
was very angry, and wrote to Herod that, whereas
hitherto he had treated the Jewish king as a friend,
he would henceforth treat him as a subject.f
The time when this letter was written is un
certain. Schuerer is Inclined to date It in 8 b.c,
probably rightly. Lewin, Fasti Sacri, p. 109,
places it In 7 b.c
These emphatic words, coming from an em-
* Dr. Schuerer well describes the ambiguous policy of Herod,
Gesch. d. Jud. Volkes, etc., ii., p. 327 f.
f irdKaL xP'^/^^^os ahrcf (pi\(f, vvv innjK^cp xpil^^'^^^i Josephus, Ant,
jfud., xvi., 9, 3 (§ 290).

KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT 179
peror whose words were always well weighed and
weighty, soon bore fruit in action, as we may be
certain. Nothing is related by Josephus as to the
exact form that the Roman action took ; but he
tells very emphatically how much Herod was
embarrassed by the loss of Augustus's favour. In
one point, Luke comes to our aid. He shows
that Herod was ordered to consider that the recent
orders for an enrolment In the Province Syria
applied also to his kingdom and must be obeyed.
A probable conjecture places at this point the
oath of fidelity to the Emperor, which the whole
Jewish people was ordered to take, and which
6000 Pharisees refused. It is natural that,
when the king was degraded to the rank of a
subject, his people should be constrained to take
the oath of allegiance to Cassar, In place of the
oath to Herod which they had formerly taken.*
It was the practice under the empire that all sub
jects, both Romans and provincials, should swear
allegiance and fidelity to the Emperor. In later
time, under Trajan, the oath was taken every year
on the anniversary of the Emperor's accession, but
* Schuerer, /. t., i., p. 329; Josephus, xv., 10, 4.

180 KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT
It Is uncertain when this custom was Introduced.
The words which Josephus uses would seem to
imply that the oath to Csesar was taken and re
fused only once ;* and the occasion is Implied to
have been towards the end of Herod's life.
The two acts, the oath and the enrolment, ob
viously form part of the new policy of Augustus
towards Herod, though we need not go so far as
to suppose that the two were one (as some scholars
have done), and that the oath was taken as part of
the ceremony of enrolment.
Incidentally, we may notice as a masterpiece of
Irrationality and uncritical prejudice, the reflection
which Strauss makes about the oath of allegiance
to Augustus Imposed on the Jews. " That this
oath, far from being a humiliating measure for
Herod, coincided with his interest, is proved by
the zeal with which he punished the Pharisees who
refused to take It." f Naturally, Herod had to
punish the refusal as an act of treason. If he did
not do so, any one of his enemies could ruin him
^ iravrhs yoitv tov 'louSaiVoC ^efiaiuxravTos 5i' '6pKwy ^ p.^v eui/o^o"6ti/
KaiffapL . . . o'lSe . . . ovk &iio(rav. Josephus, /4h<. y«d., xvii. , 2, 4.
The aorists imply a single occasion, not a regularly repeated
custom. i Life of Jesus, i., p. 203.

KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT 181
by reporting the fact to Augustus. Moreover,
there were so many Roman officials In Syria that
the omission to punish the recalcitrants could not
be kept from their knowledge, and every official
was in duty bound to report the omission to his
superiors or to the Emperor. The punishment,
however, was very mild : a fine was inflicted on
the whole 6000 recalcitrants, and was paid by the
wife of Herod's brother Pheroras. Subsequently,
the ringleaders were put to death ; but that was
not on account of their refusing the oath, but be
cause they were disobedient and disrespectful to
Herod himself on a later occasion. See p. 218.
Herod was, naturally, unwilling to accept this
mark of servitude and degradation In rank without
making an effort to avoid It. He would, doubt
less, request time ; and he would have little or no
difficulty In obtaining leave from the Roman
governor, Saturnlnus, to postpone the numbering,
until he had sent an embassy to Rome. Herod
had formerly had great influence with Augustus ;
he might become powerful again ; and the Roman
officials had no reason to refuse compliance with
such a reasonable request for temporary delay.
Herod could represent with perfect truth that the

182 KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT
Imposition of a Roman census in Palestine would
offend the prejudices of the Jews, and endanger
the peace of the kingdom. Moreover, the crafty
king knew well how to make his requests accept
able to Roman officers, who were almost invariably
accessible to bribery.
Further, according to Josephus, Herod's case
was a good and strong one, and Syllseus was a
false accuser. After Saturnlnus had come to Syria
as governor. In succession to Titius (probably In
the summer of 9 b.c*), long negotiations went on
in his presence between Herod and Syllasus ; an
arrangement was made between them ; It was
afterwards broken by Syllasus ; Herod again com
plained to Saturnlnus, and was authorised to make
war on the Arabians.
Incidentally, we notice that both the accusation
that Herod had made war without Roman sanction,
and the defence that he had been authorised by the
governor of Syria, show how far he was from being
an independent king.
It Is, therefore, natural and probable that a
* Some date his arrival as late as 8 B.C. This would make the
delay in the enrolment of Judaea all the more natural. He was
succeeded by Quinctilius Varus in 7 ; see p. 247.

KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT 183
postponement of the enrolment should have been
granted to Herod ; and, although our authorities
merely say that an embassy was sent, and give no
information as to the exact message, yet we may
fairly assume that It was Intended both to soothe
the anger of Augustus and to beg for exemption
from the enrolment, on the ground that this was
likely to rouse the religious feeling of the Jews
and cause disturbance and insurrection.
The embassy was sent to Rome, but It was not
received in audience, and it returned without
effecting anything. Augustus, of course, knew in
a general way what Instructions had been given to
It, and he did not think that Herod had been
sufficiently humiliated. Perhaps Herod's case was
not quite so good as Josephus represents it, and
there was something to be said on the Arabian
side of which we are not Informed. Augustus
must assuredly have received the reports of Satur
nlnus the governor, and of Volumnlus his own
procurator ; but he still continued stern and un
forgiving to Herod.
In these circumstances the delay granted to
Herod in regard to the enrolment was not ex
tended, and, as we may suppose, he was called

184 KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT
upon to obey the emperor's orders. He sent a
second embassy to Augustus, which was. In all pro
bability, commissioned — not, as before, to request
exemption from the enrolment, but to announce
his submission and to promise unconditional com
pliance. This embassy was much more favourably
received, and returned from Rome successful ; but
Herod was evidently by no means completely par
doned or restored fully to favour. When once
Augustus's anger had been roused at the Jewish
monarch's assumption of too great freedom. It was
far from easy to appease It entirely, and impossible
to eradicate the effect produced on his mind.
The succession to Herod's kingdom was subject
to the sanction of Augustus.* He could not
punish his own sons without formally accusing
them before a council of his relatives and the
Roman officers of the province. t He had to
send embassy after embassy to Rome to obtain
the sanction of Augustus for his intended acts.
He could not punish his guilty son Antipater
without getting special leave from Augustus. In
fact his kingdom was treated ostentatiously as
* Aut. Jud., xvii., 3, 2 (§ 53) ; 8, 2 (§ 195).
f Twv Kara t7;i/ eirapx^^v 7]yefj.6ywi', Bell. Jud., i., 27, 1.

KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT 185
an outlying part of the province, in which no
thing of any consequence could go on without the
Roman sanction.
Luke's statement that the enrolment was applied
to Palestine Is therefore in perfect accord with the
situation as revealed by Josephus during the last
years of the life of Herod. The question that
remains is : In what year was the enrolment made
in Palestine .''
The year which was generally observed in the
southern part of the Province Syria and perhaps
followed by Josephus in his history, began in
the spring.* In Syria, therefore, the periodic
year was probably 9-8 b.c, and the actual number
ing would take place in the year 8-7 b.c
The recital of events which has just been given
will prove that the numbering In Palestine could
not have occurred so early as the year 8-7, ending
1 7th April, 7 B.C. A consideration of the character
of the enrolment will bring us to a more precise
result. Herod was naturally eager to avoid giving to
the enrolment an entirely foreign and non-national
* See Niese in Hermes, xxviii., 1893, p. 212 ff. ; also below. Notes
on p. 222 ff.

186 KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT
character. Such a character both accentuated his
own humiliation and was more liable to rouse the
ever-wakeful pride and jealousy of his Jewish sub
jects. Obviously, the best way to soothe the Jewish
sentiment was to give the enrolment a tribal charac
ter and to number the tribes of Israel, as had been
done by purely national Governments.
The Roman officials would not be likely to
object to this form of enrolment. Provided
Herod obeyed the orders of Augustus that an
enrolment must be made. It would be entirely in
accordance with the spirit in which these subject
kingdoms were treated, that the manner of making
the enrolment should be left to the discretion of
the responsible authority, viz., the king. More
over, the marvellous success of Roman provincial
administration was due to the skill and tact with
which the officials accommodated themselves to the
prejudices of the subject population ; and this was
clearly a case in which Jewish susceptibilities might
be taken into account as regards the manner
of numbering. The people was well known to
be stubborn and unyielding In Its religious ideas ;
and, with rare exceptions, Rome humoured its re
ligious prejudices.

KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT 187
In his work on the relations between the
Imperial law and the National law, Dr. MItteis has
shown how much the Roman law was affected In
the Eastern provinces by national law and custom.*
In those countries Rome was brought in contact
with an old civilisation and a settled system of
Greek law ; and It did not seek to force on them
its own law, as It did on the barbarous countries of
the West. Similarly, the Roman governor of Syria
was not likely to dictate the precise fashion In which
the numbering of Palestine must be carried out.
Moreover, we have already seen that the prime
consideration in the Imperial system of administer
ing the provinces was to avoid disturbance and
sedition. Augustus and the later emperors
emphatically Inculcated this principle on their
lieutenants in the provinces. Herod could with
perfect justice show that tribal numbering was the
form which would tend most to peace and order
in his kingdom.
Herod's method In governing his kingdom was,
as we have seen, to humour the Jews, and to accept
the distinction which they proudly drew between
themselves and the heathen. Must we not, then,
* ^eichsrecht un4 Volksrecht, Leipzig, 1891,

188 KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT
suppose that he would employ the same method In
his enrolment ? Owing to the care with which the
Jews preserved their family records and pedigrees,
all true Jews would know what was their family
and their proper city according to the ancient
tribal system, even though they might have been
forced by circumstances to change their abode.
This seems to have suggested the mode of enrol
ment which Luke describes — a mode which would
mark off by a broad clear line the true Jews from
the mongrel population of Palestine. All who
claimed to be Jews were to repair to the proper
city of their tribe and family. The rest of the
population, who were probably much more numer
ous, would be counted according to their ordinary
place of residence.
My friend, Professor Paterson, to whom I am
Indebted throughout these pages, points out that
Augustus would specially desire an enrolment of
Palestine In order to have some clear idea what
was the military strength of the country. It was
a troublesome district to rule. Disturbances were
always apprehended. There was obvious advan
tage In knowing what was the exact strength of
the possible rebels.

KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT 189
Moreover, the non-Jewish population was peace
able and well-affected to Rome. The enrolment
would obviously be much more useful, if it
distinguished accurately the rebellious from the
peaceful element in the population. The tribal
enrolment furnished the means of gaining this
information. It might safely be concluded that
all those who were content to be counted as
non-tribal would be loyal subjects of Rome. The
imposition of the oath of allegiance * to Augustus
would also furnish a test, and the number of those
who refused the oath was kept. Josephus says
there were more than 6000. He Implies, not that
this was an estimate of the strength of the Pharisaic
faction, but that those who actually refused to take
the oath were counted ; and he says that they were
regarded as dangerous and likely to rouse war and
dlsturbance.f According to Luke the tribal enrolment was
made by ordering every head of a household to
repair for the numbering to the proper city from
which his family had sprung. Such a method would
* See above, p. 179 f.
t eK rod irpo{nrrov els rh ¦KoKep.etv t€ /cal ^Kdirreiv eTn)pp.4voi, Ant.
Jitd., xvii., 2, 4 (41).

190 KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT
have been entirely inapplicable In a large country.
But, as the traveller rides across the length of
Palestine, it is vividly brought home to him that
this was an easy and short method In that
land. The Romans, who required that citizens
should travel to Rome from the remotest part
of Italy when they wished to register their vote,
would see nothing to object to, if Herod consulted
them as to his proposed scheme.
In the national character which Herod gave to
his enrolment, probably, lies the reason why Mary
as well as Joseph went up to Bethlehem — a detail
which would be so Inexplicable If the enrolment
had been modelled after a Roman census. To go
personally to the enrolment was regarded as sub
stantiating a claim to true Hebrew origin and
family. All they that went to their proper city
were true Hebrews ; and, as Luke says, " all {i.e.,
all true Hebrews in Palestine) went to enrol them
selves, every one to his own city ".
It Is Important to notice the force of the word
" all " here. This is one of many passages in
Luke's History where the precise sense that should
be attributed to the word " all " or the word
" they " may be, or has been, a subject of contro-

KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT 191
versy, and can be determined bnly from the whole
train of thought in the historian's mind. He that
misconceives the general thought underlying the
whole passage inevitably misinterprets " they " or
"all". For example, who are " they " In Acts xiii. 3 ^
On the way in which that question Is answered
hinges a controversy as to Church government.
Who are " all " in Acts xviii. 17 ? On the answer
depends the whole sense of the incident ; but an
answer is difficult, and depends on the general
conception in the reader's mind. Some say " all
the Jews beat a Christian " : others say " all the
Greeks beat a Jew ". Similarly, who are " us " in
Luke 1. I? Professor Blass has recently answered
that in his own way. Many would give a
different reply.
Accordingly, to understand " all " In Luke ii. 3,
one must put oneself at the narrator's point of
view. As we have seen, he conveys the impres
sion throughout the two chapters that he Is giving
the story of Mary herself. To her " all " are the
Jews : she thinks only of her own people : the
non-Jewish population of Palestine is not embraced
in her view.

192 KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT
But, when such a plan of tribal numbering was
adopted, the time of year had to be carefully con
sidered. In the first place the winter months had
to be avoided, during which travelling was often
difficult, and In which unfavourable weather might
cause great hardship and even prevent the plan
from being carried out. As the day had to be
fixed a long time beforehand. It must have been
fixed In the season when good weather could be
calculated on. In winter, weather might be good
or It might be bad, and at the best It would
be cold and trying.
That a day was fixed by the authorities, and
that It was not left to the discretion of the people
to go when they pleased (as In Egypt people seem
to have been permitted to send In their enrolment
papers at any time they pleased within the year),
seems to follow from the fact that Joseph and
Mary travelled from Nazareth to Bethlehem at
the very time when the birth of the child was
approaching. Moreover, the advantages of the
plan in ease and speed would have been sacrificed,
unless a day had been fixed for the numbering.
Further, It was urgently necessary that the time
which was fixed should not interfere with agri-

KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT 193
cultural operations — that It should not come
between the earliest date for the first harvest and
the latest date ibr finishing the threshing, and
getting In the grain and the fine cut straw from the
threshing floors.* The harvest varied considerably
in dl.^erent parts of the country, and reaping ex
tended over about seven weeks, beginning from
the middle of April.
Taking these circumstances Into consideration,
we may say with considerable confidence that
August to October is the period within which the
numbering would be fixed. It is no objection to
this view that tradition places the birth of Jesus at
Christmas. It Is well known that the tradition Is
not early, that it varies in different periods and
In different sections of the Church, and that the
earliest belief was different.
Lewin, In Fasti Sacri, p. 115, selects ist August
as the day and month. Without laying any stress
on the reasoning from the priestly periods by
which he reaches this precise and exact conclusion,
we must attach great weight to the argument
* See Mr. J. W. Paterson's excellent article on " Agriculture " in
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible. On the use of the fine chopped
straw in the economy of the farm, see Contemporary Review,
August, 1897, p. 237. 13

194 KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT
which he founds on the fact that the shepherds
were watching their flocks In the open country by
night. In Asia Minor, at least, the pasturing of
the flocks by night takes place only during the
hot season and not In the winter. The sheep will
not eat under the hot sun : they stand idly in a
dense crowd In any place where the semblance of
shade can be found during the day, and during
the night they scatter and feed. In cold weather
they seek food during the day.
On this characteristic of the sheep Is founded
the rule, said to be observed in Palestine, that the
flocks were sent out after the Passover and brought
in about October before the " former rain ".
Within that period, April to October, the day
fixed for the numbering must fall ; and during
that period April to July was required for the
reaping and garnering of the year's crop.
It seems unnecessary to do more than refer to
the Idle objection that has been made : How were
the shepherds numbered ? There must always be
some people for whom the numbering Is incon
venient, whatever be the time at which it is fixed ;
and we need not trouble to inquire what was the
method adopted to meet the special case of the

KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT 195
shepherds. That Inquiry belongs to the sphere of
the archasological student, who studies the minutice
of the census system ; but the historian. In his
more general view, must omit such details. No
critic, who retains his sober reason and does not
yield to mere prejudice, would find any difficulty
In it.
After all, not a great deal of journeying to and
fro would be required for the enrolment. The
remnant that could trace their origin to the Ten
Tribes must have been very small. The majority
of the strictly Jewish population was probably
resident at that time in the southern part of
Palestine, though there was also a large minority
scattered over all the cities of the central and
northern districts. A considerable number of
people would have to make journeys of one to
four days to their own city, and the same back
again ; but nothing approaching to a general
transference of population would be necessitated.
For Herod's enrolment, then, there Is open
only the late summer of 7 or 6 b.c Unless we
have omitted some important factor (which is, of
course, far from improbable, considering how
scanty the evidence is), the enrolment can hardly

196 KING HEROD'S ENROLMENT
be brought down so late as 5 b.c ; and we have
seen that 8 b.c is excluded by other considera
tions. Between the years 7 and 6 it Is difficult to choose,
so long as we confine ourselves to the evidence out
side of Luke, for that evidence Is Insufficient to
found a judgment upon, owing to the uncertainty
of all the dates connected with the question. It
may be that the embassy which was dismissed
unheard by Augustus, returned so late that the
necessary preparations and notice could not be
made In time for the autumn of 7 b.c ; and It is
certain that Herod was by no means eager to
hurry the numbering. But these are mere vague
presumptions. Luke, however, gives additional Information
about the Saviour's life, which affords reasonable
confidence that 6 B.C. was the year of Christ's
birth. Note. — That a difference should be made in the treatment
of Jews and non-Jews in Palestine, is quite in accordance with
Roman usage. For example, after the rebellion under Hadrian,
the Jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST 197

CHAPTER X.
CHRONOLOGY OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST.
Luke iii. 23 tells that Jesus appeared before the
world as the teacher, when he was about thirty
years of age. Now it Is a characteristic usage in
Greek to employ this vague expression, when there
Is no Intention to Imply doubt as to the age : It
lies In the genius of the language to avoid posltive-
ness in assertion, and to prefer less definite and
pronounced and harsh forms of statement.* It Is
unnecessary to think that Luke was really doubt
ful what was the age of Jesus, whether twenty-
eight or thirty-two. His elaborately careful and
precise dating, HI. i, 2, may be taken as an indica
tion that he had good and accurate Information
on the subject ; that he " had Investigated all the
circumstances accurately In their origin ". But,
like a true Greek, he says "about thirty," where
* The less definite form is strictly correct : Jesus was thirty
years and a few months, more or less.

198 CHRONOLOGY OF
the less sensitive barbarian of our northern island
would use a rudely positive and definite number.
The only doubt that remains Is whether Luke
means in his thirtieth year, or when he was thirty
years old ; and this doubt Is resolved by the other
facts recorded by Luke, as we shall see. Jesus was
thirty years old, when he began his public career.
The precise statement is doubtless derived from
the same authority as the whole of the first two
chapters (and perhaps also iv. 16-30) ; and the only
reason for recording It is that it was given exactly
by a first-rate authority, and therefore helped
Luke's readers " to know the certainty concerning
the things wherein they had been instructed ".
An authority, who was really good on such a point,
would know the exa6t age, and Luke expressly
declares his Intention of setting down only such
facts as he had accurately and certainly on trust
worthy authority. Where his knowledge was
only vague, he usually refrains from making any
statement : see p. 206.
If the birth of Jesus occurred In b.c 6, he
became thirty years of age In the second half of
A.D. 25, and his appearance as a teacher took place
within the year that followed. If his birth oc-

THE LIFE OF CHRIST 199
curred In b.c 7, the date of his appearance must
be placed one year earlier, but we shall find reason
to reject that supposition.
Some time, but apparently quite a short time,
before Jesus came forward as a teacher, John the
Baptist began to preach that the Messiah was at
liand ; and Jesus was among the crowds who
flocked to him to receive baptism. Now, as Luke
mentions, " the word of God came to John " in
the fifteenth year of the authority* of Tiberius
Casar. The date Is given very precisely and
deinltely ; but, unfortunately. It is by no means
easT to say what year Is meant by it.
It is often found that, where an ancient writer
aim; at making his statement most precise and
exact, his words lend themselves to several Inter-
pretitlons.f What did Luke understand by the
authority of Tiberius ? In the Inscriptions of that
emperor's lifetime, the years of his reign are esti
mated according to the number of times that he
had -ecelved tribunlclan power. On that system
* Megemonia, riye/j.ovia, is the word ; on its sense, see pp. 229, 247.
t flommsen quotes a remarkable case in the Monumentum
Ancynniim where Augustus's desire to be precise and certain has
expostd his statement of a number to be interpreted in three
differint ways by different writers ; see above, p. 153,

200 CHRONOLOGY OF
his fifteenth year began on 27th June, a.d. 13.
Obviously Luke cannot Intend that year.
Again, according to Velleius, the admirer and
friend and faithful follower of Tiberius, associated
with him In nine years of warfare, authority
equal to that of Augustus In all the provinces and'
armies of the empire was granted to Tiberius by
the senate and people, on the proposal of Augustus
himself, before he returned to Rome to celebrate
his triumph over the peoples of Pannonia ard
Dalmatia. Now this triumph was celebrated on
i6th January, a.d. 12,* therefore the decree of
equal power must have been passed before the sid
of A.D. II. Further, the language of Velldus
suggests that the decree was issued not long be|Dre
Tiberius returned, and it was so closely conneded
with his return that Suetonius seems to plac; it
after he reached Rome. But Velleius's autha-ity
must be ranked superior in regard to such a pdint.
There can be no doubt that this was the client
which Tacitus had in mind when he said that
Tiberius had been created Collep'a Im^'^crii dirino-
the lifetime of Augustus {Ayiiuils, i., 3).
* Prosopographia Imp. i?ora., ii., p. 183; fAommsen, Slaati'ccht,
ii., p. 1159.

THE LIFE OF CHRIST 201
It follows that the first year during which
Tiberius held power as colleague of Augustus with
equal power In all provinces of the empire co
incided with the end of a.d. ii and the greater
part of A.D. 12, and the fifteenth year with a.d.
25-6.* If Luke counted the years of Tiberius according
to that system, all his statements as to time in
these early chapters are found to be consistent and
accurate. The first enrolment must have taken
place In autumn n.c 6. Jesus was thirty years
old In autumn a.d. 25. In the later months
of that year, when the fifteenth year of the
Hegemonia ot Tiberius In the provinces had just
recently begun (according to the official usage *),
John appeared announcing the coming of Christ ;
and very shortly thereafter Jesus came and was
baptised by John In the river Jordan. A month
or two thereafter occurred the Passover on 21st
March, a.d. 26 (Lewin, Fasti Sacri, p. 173).
The only reason for doubting whether Luke
could have counted the years of Tiberius on that
system. Is that It Is never employed elsewhere In
reckoning the reign of that emperor. When his
* See Note, p. 221 ff.

202 CHRONOLOGY OF
tribunlclan years are not stated, his reign is always
elsewhere counted from the death of his prede
cessor, Augustus ; and it Is beyond dispute that he
was not In any proper and strict sense emperor
until that time. But It seems not impossible that
his Hegemonia In the provinces might be counted
from A.D. II, when his authority began In them.
Similarly, we saw on p. 140 that In Egypt the
reign of Augustus was reckoned, not from any
date when he became emperor in a strict and
proper sense, but from b.c 30, when his authority
began in that country.
Further, Luke, the whole spirit of whose His
tory stamps It as belonging to the Flavian period,
knew that the reign of Titus was counted from
the day when he was made the colleague of his
father, Vespasian ; and thus he may have been
led to apply to the time of Tiberius the principle
which was in current and official use while he was
writing.* Now the only dates that are permissible for the
crucifixion are a.d. 29, 30 and 33. Different
authorities vary between these three years. But,
as It is not possible to allow that more than
* See Mr. Turner in Dr. Hastings' Did. of Bible, i., p. 406.

THE LIFE OF CHRIST 203
four Passovers occurred during the public career of
Jesus, we are bound to the view that his career
extended from the time preceding the Passover of
26 till the Passover of 29. The strength of the
tradition that places the crucifixion In 29 has been
admirably stated by Mr. C. H. Turner in his
article on the" Chronology of the New Testament".*
But is this consistent with Luke's narrative ?
Does he permit the supposition that four Passovers
occurred within the period of Jesus' teaching ?
Luke does not refer to any Passover during
that whole period except the last. He was not
Interested In the relation of Jesus to the Jewish
feasts, and hardly alludes to the subject after the
Passover that occurred In the Saviour's twelfth
year. Hence we cannot expect from him much
direct evidence bearing on the Passovers during
the teaching of Jesus.
Moreover, Luke had little of the sense for
chroi^ology, the value of which In clearly under
standing or describing any series of Incidents had
not been appreciated so early as the first century.
Chronology, too, was much more difficult when no
era had come into general use, when dates were
* In Dr. Hastings' Diet, of Bible.

204 CHRONOLOGY OF
commonly stated by the names of annual magis
trates, or the years of sovereigns, and when In
Asia scores of different eras for dating had just
begun to come into use side by side with one
another, so that, even when one does find a date
by a numbered year. It Is often a difficult problem
to determine what era Is used.
Want of chronological sense or Interest may
seem a serious defect in a historian. But we are
too apt to forget that Luke was not writing for
us, and that he was not even writing for posterity.
He wrote for the benefit of his own contem
poraries. His work stands in the closest relation
to the time. That which seemed most important
for the requirements of the Church at the time
was what Luke most desired to record with
absolute accuracy and trustworthiness. Abstract
scientific Interest In the chronology of the Gospel
did not exist among his readers. What they were
concerned with was its truth ; and that was
gathered from the Saviour's teaching, from his
statements about himself, and from the facts of
his Birth, Death and Resurrection. These were
the points on which Luke's attention was con
centrated In his first book.

THE LIFE OF CHRIST 205
Some authorities are disposed to think that
Luke believed the whole period of the teaching of
Jesus to have been comprised within the period of
a little more than a year, lasting from shortly
before one Passover till the Passover of the follow
ing year. A widely-spread opinion in the second
and third centuries assigned that duration to the
Saviour's ministry, but I can discover nothing to
show that Luke shared it. The opinion, probably,
was the result of two causes. In the first place,
the notes of time In the Gospels are very slight and
difficult to fit together. In the second place, the
saying about " the acceptable year of the Lord "
was easily misunderstood.
The memory of the earliest authorities, as a
rule, was entirely filled with the words and teach
ing of the Saviour. Chronological order was little
thought of ; and we should probably find that
most of the writings alluded to by Luke I. i took
the form of collections of sayings and parables.
The only events, probably, that were vividly
remembered In their historical aspect and apart
from the doctrine connected with them, were the
series of actions comprised within the last few
days of the Saviour's life. The sequence of these

206 CHRONOLOGY OF
events was indelibly stamped on the memory of
all.* But the rest of the tradition was a repro
duction of past lessons and Impressive sayings.
These were connected with certain localities ;
some were associated with certain actions of the
Saviour or of those who were in his company.
But his numerous journeys great and small
were not remembered in their sequence. In this
state of information, Luke evidently forbore the
attempt to describe exactly the movements of
Jesus during the greater part of the teaching.
In the beginning. Indeed, he describes the
sequence of Jesus' first journeys. He tells how
Jesus was baptised by John in Jordan, Hi. 21 ; and
he dates at that point the beginning of his teach
ing. Hi. 23. Then he tells of the journey Into the
wilderness, i.e., the country south from Jerusalem,
and mentions that Jesus was actually In Jerusalem,
iv. 1-13. Thereafter Jesus returned to Galilee
and taught there for some time, Iv. 14, 15, after
which he returned to Nazareth for a brief visit,
Iv. 16-30. Being rejected and threatened with
death at Nazareth, he came down to Capernaum,
iv. 31. * Yet corapare John xii. 1, Mark xiv. 1 : see p. 91.

THE LIFE OF CHRIST 207
The narrative during this stage touches that of
the other Gospels at occasional points ; and one
paragraph, iv. 1-13, is perhaps founded on the
same ultimate authority as Matthew Iv. i-ii
(though with a difference In order). No indica
tion of the lapse of time is given ; but some con
siderable period is likely to have elapsed even In
the events Implied In iv. 15 alone.
But at this point, iv. 31, begins a new section
of the narrative. The indications of movement
for a considerable period are of the vaguest kind.
iv. 42, He went Into a desert place, v. 16, He
withdrew himself in the deserts, v. 27, He went
forth, vi. I, He was going through the corn
fields, probably In May or June when the wheat
was ripe but not cut. vi. 12, He went out Into
the mountain to pray. vi. 17, He came down
with them. vii. i. He entered Into Capernaum.
vii. 1, He went soon afterwards to a city called
Nain (an episode peculiar to Luke). His return
from Nain Is never mentioned, but vii. 1 8 ff. pro
bably belongs to the coasts of the Sea of Galilee.
viii. I , He soon afterwards went about through cities
and villages, viii. 22, He entered into a boat (on
the Sea of Galilee), viii. 26, He arrived at the

208 CHRONOLOGY OF
country of the Gerasenes, which is over against
Galilee, viii. 38, He entered Into a boat and
returned, ix. 10, He withdrew apart to a city
called Bethsaida. Ix. 28, He went up about eight
days after Into the mountain to pray. Ix. 37,
On the next day when they were come down from
the mountain, a great multitude met him (and
here Mark's reference to the green grass, vi. 39,
and John's to the abundant grass, vi. 10, show
that the time was spring).
In this part of the narrative, the lapse of time
is hardly alluded to : only the brief and vague
indications just quoted are given. The marks of
locality, apart from those Implied in the Indica
tions of movement, are also very vague and elusive.
iv. 44, He was preaching In the synagogues of
Galilee, v. 1, He was standing by the Lake of
Gennesaret. v. 12, He was In one of the cities.
This section of the narrative, Iv. 31 — Ix. 50, Is
as a whole (though with some considerable excep
tions) closely parallel to Mark and Matthew.
Great part of the section Is evidently founded on
an authority common to them (though we ex
pressly avoid stating any opinion as to the nature
of the connexion between the three).

THE LIFE OF CHRIST 209
It Is plain that though Luke, with his usual
indifference to the chronological aspect of history,
does not properly mark the lapse of time, yet this
section must extend over some considerable period.
" Preaching in the synagogues of Galilee " Is the
sort of phrase by which Luke sums up a consider
able period ; and the different movements, men
tioned or Implied, vague as they are, together with
the Intervals between them, demand time.
From Ix. 5 1 begins another new section describ
ing the movement to Jerusalem preparatory to the
culmination of Christ's teaching there. In x. 38,
as they went on their way, he entered into a
certain village {viz., Bethany) ; and in xi. i, he
was praying in a certain place. In this and the
following chapters there continues the same vague
ness. Luke only makes It clear that the most
advanced stage in the ministry has begun, and that
Jesus is moving gradually towards the south and
is affecting the southern half of Palestine. In
xiii. 22, he went on his way through towns and
villages teaching ind journeying on unto Jerusalem.
In xvii. 1 1 , as they were on the way to Jerusalem,
he was passing through the midst of Samaria and
Galilee. xvHI. 31, We go up to Jerusalem, xviii,
14

210 CHRONOLOGY OF
35, He drew nigh unto Jericho, xix. i. He
entered and was passing through Jericho, xix. 1 1 ,
He was nigh to Jerusalem, xix. 28 f, He went on
before, going up to Jerusalem (by the steep road
from Jericho), and he drew nigh to Bethany.
Then comes the entry into Jerusalem, where the
rest of the narrative has Its scene.
With very slight exceptions, the section Ix. 51 —
xix. 28 Is quite peculiar to Luke, and has hardly
any points of contact with any of the other Gospels.
But the same vagueness of place and time con
tinues. It Is, however, clearly unnecessary and Impro
bable that this section represents, or was considered
by Luke to represent, the events of one single
continuous approximately straight journey. The
multitudes, the towns and villages, the frequent re
petition of the idea of progress towards Jerusalem,
Imply a gradual advance of the circle of the teach
ing towards the south and towards the centre of
Jewish religion and the completion of his mission.
If, as I believe to be probably the case, Luke
knew what was the " certain village " of Martha
and Mary, x. 38, but for some reason (about
which we need not speculate) avoided naming it.

THE LIFE OF CHRIST 211
our view would be raised to complete certainty,
that in this section the historian Is describing a
general movement southwards, accompanied and
complicated by many short journeys to and fro,
up and down, " through towns and villages teach
ing ". If he Is at Bethany in x., and at Jericho
In xviii., and In Samaria In xvii., zigzag wanderings
are clearly Implied. But, as many may prefer to
consider that x. 38 has been put In false local and
chronological order by Luke through his ignorance
that the " certain village " was Bethany, we need
not press an argument that Is not actually required
for our purpose. Even without it the view which
we are stating as to Luke's Intention in this section
seems certain.
It is obvious, then, that Luke divides the teach
ing of Jesus, previous to the final scenes In Jeru
salem, into three stages. The first and preliminary
stage — In the wilderness of Judah, In Galilee and
in Nazareth — Is very briefly recorded. The
second — spent In Galilee or the north continuously
— Is described at much greater length : Jesus had
now become a famous teacher, and attracted
many hearers and followers. The third — the
extension of the sphere of Influence over central

212 CHRONOLOGY OF
Palestine as far as Jerusalem — Is described still
more fully. There is no attempt or intention to
describe the movements ot Jesus exactly In the
second and third stages.
Further, the second stage evidently lasted a full
year, for after it has begun some time, we find
ourselves in the month of May or June, and at the
end we are again In spring (as we know from
Mark but not from Luke).
The probability, then. Is that roughly the three
stages correspond to the three years ; and the
memory of the witnesses retained very little
that was accurate and definite (except some Im
portant changes of scene and journeys) during
the preliminary stage, a.d. 26, more about the
second, a.d. 27, and still more about the third,
a.d. 28.
The first Passover, a.d. 26 (John ii. 13), falls
about Luke Iv. 13, and the year ends about iv. 31.
At the feast of this year, the Jews spoke about the
46th year of the building of the Temple (John Ii.
29) ; and the 46th year had begun shortly before
they spoke.*
The second Passover, a.d. 27 (John v. 1), falls
* See Note on p. 224 f.

THE LIFE OF CHRIST 213
about Luke v. (see p. 215). Then follows the
month of May, vi. i.
The spring of a.d. 28 and the third Passover
(John vi. 4) must be placed In Luke Ix. The
summer of this year, however, was still spent In
Galilee, according to John vii. i ; but It is not
Inconsistent with this statement that the third
stage of Luke had already begun. The character
istic of that stage was that Jesus had now set his
face firmly to go to Jerusalem, Ix. 5 1 ; but during
it, he was still passing through the midst of
Samaria and Galilee, xvii. 1 1 . The period in
Luke's estimation Is rather one of firm and definite
resolution than of bodily movement continuously
towards Jerusalem. The visit to the country east
of Jordan (Mark x. 1, Matt. xix. i) certainly
belongs to this stage.
That there was a strong tradition to the effect
that the Saviour suftered at the age of thirty-three
seems to follow from the agreement of HIppo-
lytus * and Euseblus and Phlegon. The latter, as
Is allowed by Mr. Turner, was indebted to very
early Christian authorities for his Information. It
Is true that both Euseblus and Phlegon place the
' On Hippolytus see Mr. Turner's remarks, /. 1.., p. 413, col. 2.

214 CHRONOLOGY OF
crucifixion in a.d. 33, but this arises from their
both depending on the original Christian calcula
tion which ultimately gave rise to the modern era
of the birth of Christ. This was wrongly calcu
lated as early as the second century ; and, starting
from that Initial error, the chronologlsts had to
place the beginning of the teaching In thirty and
the crucifixion in thirty-three.
It is a strong confirmation of our result that
It agrees with two so ancient traditions, which are
quite unconnected with one another and evidently
seemed to most of the ancients to be Inconsistent
with each other.
Starting from a very different point of view
from that of Mr. Turner, and working on utterly
diverse lines, we have reached nearly the same con
clusion that he reached. The only differences of
importance are two : —
I. I find myself obliged, on the principles of
Interpretation which I have followed consistently
throughout, to attach a distinctly higher value
than he does to Luke's statement as to the age of
Jesus when he began to teach.
2. Mr. Turner Is Inclined to think that Luke
compressed the teaching Into one year ; and he

THE LIFE OF CHRIST 215
holds that the teaching In reality lasted only for
two years. Interpreting John v. i as referring to
some unnamed minor feast.* This view cannot
be disproved, but it seems to have nothing to
recommend it, and it Introduces quite unnecessary
discord between the different Gospels. The
chronological marks In the Gospels are so slight
that almost anything can be made out of them. If
one is bent on doing so. Hence there was In
ancient time an Immense variety of opinion on this
point. But In four independent accounts of one
series of events, a reasonable criticism will prefer
the Interpretation in which all the various con
ditions are reconciled.
At the last moment, after this chapter Is In
type. Professor Paterson reminds me that the
result which we have attained agrees with the
celebrated calculation of Kepler, who fixed on the
year b.c. 6, because in March of that year there
occurred a conjunction of Jupiter, Saturn and
Mars, which would present a most brilliant appear
ance in the sky, and would naturally attract the
attention of observers Interested in the phenomena
of the heavens, as v/ere the Wise Men of the East.
* Reading " a feast " instead of " the feast " (eopr?; for ri iopr-ii).

216 CHRONOLOGY OF
I have no knowledge what Is the value of
Kepler's reckoning. Mr. Turner, who knows
much more about the matter, speaks only of the
conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, which occurred
in May, October and December, b.c 7 ; and I
presume that he would have mentioned the triple
conjunction (on which Kepler laid such stress), if
he had accepted the calculation, even though it
does not suit the date 7-6, to which he Inclines.
The coincidence, however, seems worthy of mention,
but it is not presented as an argument.
But, while we lay no stress upon It as an argu
ment, the subject Is so Interesting, and presents so
many curious coincidences, that a few paragraphs
may profitably be devoted to it.
The conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the
constellation Pisces, according to a Jewish belief
of some antiquity,* is the sign of the Messiah's
coming. If there existed some belief that the
coming of a King of the Jews was to be heralded
thus, the occurrence of the phenomenon would
necessarily arrest the attention of the astrology-
* Mr. Turner says : " The statement of a mediaeval Jew, R.
Abarbanel, that the conjunction of these two planets in Pisces is
to be a sign of Messiah's coming, may perhaps have been derived
ultimately from ancient traditions known to the Chaldseans".

THE LIFE OF CHRIST 217
loving priests In the East. Kepler's theory was,
that just as the conjunction In 1604 of Jupiter and
Saturn, culminated in 1605 In the conjunction of
Jupiter, Saturn and Mars, and was followed by the
appearance of a new and brilliant star, which dis
appeared again after about eighteen months, so in
B.C. 7 and 6, the exactly singular conjunctions
were followed by the appearance of a new star
after the triple conjunction, and that this was the
star of Matt. II. 2.
Now the visit of the Magi obviously did not
occur until more than forty days after the birth
of Jesus,* and may probably be placed during the
winter of B.C. 6-5. Kepler's theory Involves that
they appeared before Herod at this time, and
informed him of the reason of their coming.
Herod thereupon consulted the Jewish priests,
and heard from them that the King was to be
born in Bethlehem. He also questioned the Magi
privately, and learned the exact facts with regard
to the appearance of the star, and doubtless also
with regard to the whole phenomenon in the
heavens. He would learn from the Magi that
* The ceremony in Jerusalem, Luke ii. 22, could not have taken
place after the visit of the Magi, for the flight into Egypt must
have followed immediately on the visit.

218 CHRONOLOGY OF
the fateful conjunction first occurred in May of
the year b.c 7. Then he sent the Magi away
to Bethlehem, and awaited news of their discovery.
When they did not return, he ordered all children
under two years of age in Bethlehem to be killed.
The King might have been born at any time after
the first conjunction occurred ; and that was at
least eighteen months ago. Therefore, In order
to make sure, the order Included every child under
two. Now about this time, as Josephus mentions,*
Herod was troubled by a prophecy that the power
was about to pass away from him and from his
family ; and the Pharisees, from favour to the
wife of Pheroras (who promised to pay their fine"]'),
predicted that the succession would come to her
and her children. Obviously, the second part of
the prophecy was pure invention, due to partisan
ship ; but the first part was almost certainly con
nected with the Jews' deep-seated belief In the
coming of a new King, the Messiah. Lewin
(whose arrangement of the events in the last three
years of Herod's life seems very good) pk-xes this
event In b.c. 6 ; Schuerer dates It In 7. One or
* Ant. Jud., xvii., 2, 4. ' f See p. 181.

THE LIFE OF CHRIST 219
the Other must be right. Herod put to death
the ringleaders of the Pharisees, with two of his
own personal attendants, and also all those of his
own household that had associated themselves with
the prediction of the Pharisees.
There occurred therefore a number of deaths
among the family and attendants of Herod In con
nexion with the belief In the coming of a new King.
Now Macroblus, a pagan writer about a.d. 400,
says that when the news was brought to Augustus
that Herod, King of the Jews, had ordered chil
dren under two years of age In Syria to be slain,
and that among them was a son of Herod's, the
Emperor remarked, " It Is better to be Herod's
pig than his son ".* It Is not probable that
Macroblus was indebted to a Christian writer for
this story ;f and, therefore, probably the story of
the Massacre of the Infants was recorded in some
pagan source. The execution of the conspirators
in Herod's household perhaps occurred about the
same time ; but among them there Is not likely to
* Augustus must have uttered the witticism in Greek ; the pun
(vv ti vi6v) is lost in Latin or English : see Macroblus, Sat., ii., 4.
f (1) The pagans of that tirae were strongly prejudiced against
Christians and not likely to quote thera. (2) A Christian author
would have spoken about Palestine, not about Syria.

220 CHRONOLOGY OF
have been a son of Herod's. Only a few months
before, however, Herod had put to death two of
his sons, and the remark of Augustus may have
been prompted by hearing successively of so many
barbarities, the execution of two sons, of a number
of infants, and of several of his own family and
personal attendants.
While all these statements furnish only vague
presumptions, yet they certainly tend to show that
much was going on of a remarkable character
about B.C. 7-6, and they fit In well with both
Luke and Matthew. If the narratives of these
two writers are true, they throw much light on
Josephus and Macroblus, and receive Illustration
and confirmation from them.
But that which is most certain is that our
non-Christian authorities are most meagre and
fragmentary. It Is the extreme of uncritical and
unscholarly procedure to condemn the Christian
authorities because they tell some things which are
not mentioned in any non-Christian source.

THE LIFE OF CHRIST 221
Note I. — The fifteenth year of Tiberius. There are various
ways of counting the years of an emperor's reign ; and doubt
often exists which way is intended, when a date is given.
Luke might reckon the years of an emperor as beginning
always from the anniversary of the day on which power was
conferred on him. That mode of reckoning seems to have
been always used by the emperors of the first century. In
that case the fifteenth year of Tiberius's rule in the provinces
began near the end of a.d. 25, on the anniversary of the day
when he originally received collegiate authority in the provinces.
But that method was rarel)', if ever, used by the general public
or by historians in the East.
There was, however, a different method which was usually
employed by many historians and chronologists, and was
officially used by the emperors of the second and third
centuries. The first year of the emperor was estimated to run
from the day on which he assumed power to the conclusion of
the current year ; then the second year of the emperor began
on the first day of the following current year.
If that reckoning was foUowed by Luke, we should have to
inquire what system of years he followed, whether he counted
the years as beginning on the Roman system from ist January,
or on the most usual Greek system in the JEgea.n lands from
23rd September, or on a common Syrian system from iSthApril.*
On these three systems the fifteenth year of Tiberius might
begin either ist Januarj', B.C. 25, or 23rd September, 25, or i8th
April, 25.
But according to every system it will be found that the first
Passover of Jesus' teaching was the Passover of a.d. 26:
the only difference which they make to the reckoning is that
John's preaching might be made to begin a little earlier on
some than on other systems.
Note II. — It is unfortunate that, in his admirable article
on the " Chronology of the New Testament," Mr. C. H. Turner
* See Note, p. 222.

222 CHRONOLOGY OF
sometimes disregards the principle admitted by most of the
recent chronologists — that when any event was taken as an
era, the years were not reckoned beginning from that day, but
the year i was reckoned as the current year within which the
event occurred, as for example in the Asian year beginning
23rd September, the year i of the Actian era was the year
ending 22nd September, B.C. 31, although the battle of Actium
was fought as late as 2nd September, 31 (so that the year i of
this era came to an end three weeks after it began). This
principle has been proved repeatedly in the last few years, and
many difficulties, formerly found in reckoning ancient dates,
disappear as soon as it is applied. Mr., Turner follows the old
method, that the year 1 runs for twelve months from the
epoch-making event {e.g., that the first year of Herod's reign
lasted for 365 days from the day of his accession, and so
on). Thus he is beset by the difficulties that result from it :
e.g., he declares that Josephus contradicts himself when he
says that Antigonus died '' on the day of the Great Fast in the
consulship of Agrippa and Gallus (b.c. 37), twenty-seven years
to a day since the entry of Pompey into Jerusalem in the con
sulship of Antonius and Cicero (b.c. 63)"- Josephus, indeed,
has admitted not a few faults and slips into his historical
works; but it is surely going too far to say that the two
reckonings given in this sentence contradict one another.
There is no contradiction, if one counts like Josephus. Accord
ing to Mr. Turner's reckoning, the lapse of twenty-seven years
after {circa) 30th September, 63, brings us to 30th September,
36, but it brought Josephus only to 30th September, 37 ; and
his two statements (made side by side in his text) agree exactl}."
According to Niese in Hermes, 1893, p. 208 ff., Josephus in
reckoning the years under the Roman emperors employed a
solar year of the Julian type, but reckoned according to a
Tyrian (and perhaps common Syrian) method so that the year
began from i Xanthicus, i8th April. Josephus also, as Niese
* See p. 224 f.

THE LIFE OF CHRIST 223
holds, in order to avoid making the last year of one emperor
coincide with the first year of his predecessor, reckoned the
final year of each emperor as continuing to the end of the
current year, and made the first year of his predecessor begin
only on i8th April following his accession. This was neces
sary if the years of the emperors were to be used in a con
tinuous chronological system. In this way, the year i of
Tiberius began on i8th April, a.d. 15, and the year 22 con
tinued to run till 17th April, a.d. 37 (though the reign really
lasted from 19th August, a.d. 14, to i6th March, a.d. 37, i.e.,
twenty-two years, six months, twenty-eight days). Similarly,
the year i of Nero began only on i8th April, a.d. 55, full six
months after he really began to reign.
Mr. Turner points out that Euseblus followed a similar
(but not identical) method, counting the years of every
emperor from the September after his succession.
Orosius either employed a reckoning of this character or
was misled by some authority who did so ; and hence he makes
the tenth year of Claudius include an event that happened in
51, and we must suppose that he means the fourth year of
Claudius to be a.d. 45, and the ninth, a.d. 50 (see St. Paul the
Traveller, pp. 68, 254, where I did not perceive what was
the explanation of Orosius's statements and called them
errors). But it is clear that Josephus did not emploj' this kind of
reckoning for the Jewish rulers before Christ. It is more
probable that he used either the Jewish sacred year beginning
1st Nisan (usually some time in March) or the Roman year
beginning ist January. For our purposes it will make no
difference which system we follow (though there are, of course,
many cases in which it might make the difference of a year) ;
and as it will be simpler to use the Roman and modern
reckoning from ist January, we shall show the dates on that
system. I. Herod's reign de jure began from a decree of the Senate
passed in the consulship of Domitius and Pollio b.c. 40, during

224 CHRONOLOGY OF
the 184th Olympiad which ended at midsummer in that year.
Year i of Herod's reign de jure ended on 31st December,
B.C. 40 : year 37 of Herod's reign de jure ended on 31st
December, b.c. 4.
(If the decree was passed at a Senate meeting of ist
January or ist February, and the Jewish reckoning from ist
Nisan be followed, the years of Herod's reign would all be
carried back one year, so that the year 37 would end on i8th
April, B.C. 4 ; but it is improbable that the decree was passed
at these first two Senate meetings.) Herod died in the thirty-
seventh year of his reign de jure, i.e., in the year b.c. 4,
immediately before the Passover, and perhaps (as Lewin
reckons) on ist April.
2. Pompey entered Jerusalem on the Great Fast about the
end of September, B.C. 63. In reckoning from this event, year
I is the year ending 31st December, B.C. 63; year 27 is the
year ending 31st December, B.C. 37; Herod succeeded as de
facto king on the same fast day, twenty-seven years after
Pompey entered Jerusalem, i.e., about the end of September,
B.C. 37, in which year the consuls were Agrippa and Gallus.
Year i of Herod's reign de facto ended 31st December, B.C.
37; year 18 of Herod's reign de facto ended 31st December,
B.C. 29 : year 34 of Herod's reign de facto ended 31st December,
B.C. 4.
Herod died in the year 34 of his reign de facto, i.e., in the
year B.C. 4. This agrees exactly with the previous result.
Now the Temple began to be built in the eighteenth year
of Herod, i.e., B.c. 20. In reckoning from this event (John ii.
29), the Jews would presumably count according to their own
system of sacred years beginning ist Nisan. There is there
fore a doubt what was the first year of the building of the
Temple. If the building began in January-March, B.C. 20, the
first year would end at ist Nisan 20, and would begin from
ist Nisan, B.C. 21 ; but if the building began in April or later,
the first year would end at ist Nisan in B.C. 19. We take the
latter as more probable. Then the year i of the building of

THE LIFE OF CHRIST 225
the Temple begins on ist Nisan, b.c. 20 ; year 46 of the building
of the Temple begins on ist Nisan, a.d. 26.
The Jews disputing with Jesus at the Passover in the middle
of Nisan a.d. 26 would therefore on their system of reckoning
call it the 46th year. " Forty and six years has this temple
been in course of building (and is still building)." *
It is apparent how many uncertainties are caused in ancient
chronology, through the variety of systems of reckoning the
year, and other variations in different cities. We have not
indicated nearly all such causes of doubt. For example, as M.
Clermont Ganneau says, the Seleucid era was reckoned from
1st October, B.C. 312, but the era of Damascus was reckoned
from 23rd March of the same year.
Note III. — A different explanation of Luke's chronology
may be approved by some, and it therefore deserves a place
here. I am not aware that it has been advocated ; but in all
probability it has found some supporters, like every other
possible view on this subject.
It is founded on the theory — which some think highly
probable — that Luke considered the teaching of Jesus io
have extended only over a little more than twelve months,
beginning shortly before the Passover in one year and ending
with the Passover of the following year. On that theory one
might interpret the fifteenth year of Tiberius's reign in the
usual way, from his assumption of power after the death of Au
gustus, 19th August, A.D. 14. If, as many historians did, Luke
reckoned the first year of Tiberius to end on 31st December,
A.D. 14, and the fifteenth year to begin ist January, a.d. 28,
the baptism of Jesus would have to be placed early in that
year, and the crucifixion at the Passover of 29. If, on the
other hand, he reckoned the first year of Tiberius from 19th
August, a.d. 14, to i8th August, a.d. 15, then the baptism of
Jesus would have to be placed early in 29, and the crucifixion
in a.d. 30; but we have already set aside this supposition as
less probable. * See Mr. Turner on his p. 405.
15

226 CHRONOLOGY OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST
According to this method of explanation it would be
necessary to suppose that in iii. 23 Luke depended on an
excellent authority, who knew both the correct age when
Jesus began his teaching and the fact that the teaching lasted
three years and a few months ; but in iii. 1-2 he depended on
his own reckoning, founded on his false impression that the
teaching lasted only one year and a few months. The fact
would remain clear and certain that the crucifixion took place
in a.d. 29, and the teaching really began in the early spring
of 26 (exactly as we have placed them).
There seems to us to be no necessity for supposing this
partial error on Luke's part.

QUIRINIUS THE GOVERNOR OF SYRIA 227

CHAPTER XI.
QUIRINIUS THE GOVERNOR OF SYRIA.
We come now to the last serious difficulty In
Luke's account of the " First Enrolment ". He
says that it occurred while Quirinius was adminis
tering Syria.
The famous administration of Syria by Quirinius
lasted from about a.d. 6 to 9 ; and during that
time occurred the " Great Enrolment " and valua
tion of property In Palestine.* Obviously the
incidents described by Luke are Irreconcilable
with that date.
There was found near TIbur (TIvolI) In a.d.
1764 a fragment of marble with part of an in
scription, which is now preserved In the Lateran
Museum of Christian Antiquities, as one of the
important monuments bearing on the history of
Christianity. The inscription records the career
and honours of a Roman official who lived In the
* Acts V. 37 ; Josephus, Ant. Jud., xvii., 13 ; xviii., 1, 1.

228 QUIRINIUS THE GOVERNOR OF SYRIA
reign of Augustus, and survived that emperor. He
conquered a nation ; he was rewarded with two
Supplicationes and the Ornamenta Triumphalia, i.e.,
the gorgeous dress of a triumphing general, with
ivory sceptre and chariot, etc. ; he governed Asia
as proconsul ; and he twice governed Syria as
legatus of the divine Augustus.
Though the name has perished, yet these indi
cations are sufficient to show with practical certainty
(as all the highest authorities are agreed — Momm
sen, BorghesI, de Rossi, Henzen, Dessau, and
others), that the officer who achieved this splendid
career was Publius Sulplcius Quirinius. His govern
ment of Syria, a.d. 6-9, was therefore his second
tenure of that office. He had administered Syria
at some previous time. Is not this earlier ad
ministration the occasion to which Luke refers .''
Here again, however, we are confronted with
a serious difficulty. The supreme authority on
the subject, Mommsen, considers that the most
probable date for Quirinius's first government of
Syria Is about B.C. 3-1 ; but the question Is Involved
In serious doubts, which Mommsen fully acknow
ledges. That time Is doubly inconsistent with
Luke : Herod was dead before It, and it Is incon-

QUIRINIUS THE GOVERNOR OF SYRIA 229
sistent with the whole argument of the preceding
pages that the enrolment should have been post
poned so long after the periodic year b.c 9.
Again, Luke does not specify exactly what was the
Roman office which Quirinius held at the time
when this first enrolment was made. The Greek
word which he uses* occurs elsewhere In his History,
Indicating the office of procurator ; f and the noun
connected with It Is even used;jl to Indicate the
supreme authority exercised by the reigning Em
peror in a province. See p. 245.
Hence the word, as employed by Luke, might
be applied to any Roman official holding a leading
and authoritative position In the province of Syria.
It might quite naturally denote some special mis
sion of a high and authoritative nature ; and many
excellent authorities have argued that Quirinius
was despatched to Syria on some such mission,
and that Luke, In assigning the date, mentions
him In preference to the regular governor.
We find, then, that uncertainty reigns both as
to the date of Quirinius's first governorship, and
* 7]ye].ioye{iovTos ttjs ^vpias Kvp-qviov.
t Luke iii. 1; so 7]yffiuiv, Acts xxiii. 24, 26, 33; xxiv. 1, 10;
xxvi. 30.
X Luke iii. 1. See p. 199.

230 QUIRINIUS THE GOVERNOR OF SYRIA
as to whether Luke called him governor or in
tended to Indicate that he held a special mission
In Syria.
Let us now scrutinise closely the evidence bear
ing on the career of Quirinius. We shall find
that, as in so many other cases, a firm grasp of the
clue that Luke offers us will guide us safely
through a peculiarly entangled problem, and will
Illuminate a most obscure page of history. The
difficulties of the case are due to the contempt In
which Luke's testimony has been held by the
historians and one school of theologians, and the
timorous and faltering belief of others.
The only certain dates in the life of Quirinius
are his consulship In b.c 12, his second govern
ment of Syria beginning In a.d. 6, his prosecution
of his former wife, Domltia Leplda, In a.d. 20,
and his death and public funeral In a.d. 21. It
Is certain that during the eighteen years' Interval
between his consulship, b.c 12, and his second
Syrian administration, a.d. 6, the following Im
portant events in- his career occurred.
I. He held office In Syria, and carried on war
with the Homonadenses, a tribe In the Inner
mountainous district lying between Phrygia,

QUIRINIUS THE GOVERNOR OF SYRIA 231
Cilicia and Lycaonia : he gained in this war
successes which were judged so important that two
solemn acts of thanksgiving to the gods {supplica
tiones) In Rome were decreed, and the decorations
of a triumphing general were awarded to him. The
two supplicationes were probably awarded for vic
tories In two successive years, for a supplicatio
was the compliment awarded for a successful
campaign, and it Is hardly probable that two
such compliments would be paid to a general In
one year for a single war against one tribe.
Moreover, taking Into consideration the difficult
character of the country where the war occurred,
the distance from Syria, the strength of the tribe
which had successfully defied the armies of King
Amyntas, and the stubborn resistance likely to be
offered at point after point and town after town In
their large territory. It Is quite natural that two
campaigns might be required for the whole opera
tions. It is, however, not wholly Impossible that
two specially brilliant victories may have been
gained in one year over the tribe, and that each
was thought worthy of a supplicatio.
2. Quirinius governed Asia after his first ad
ministration of Syria, This was usually an annual

232 QUIRINIUS THE GOVERNOR OF SYRIA
office, and the probability therefore Is that in his
case also it lasted only one year. The exact date
is uncertain. We know with great probablHty that
Aslnlus Gallus governed Asia in b.c 6-5.
Cn. Lentulus Augur governed Asia In b.c 2-1,
also B.C. I — a.d. I.*
M. Plautlus Silvanus governed Asia In a.d. 1-2.
Marclus Censorinus governed Asia in a.d. 2-3.
Further, Quirinius was probably In Armenia in
A.D. 3, as tutor of Galus Csesar. There are there
fore open for Quirinius's tenure of the proconsul-
ship of Asia only the years b.c 5-4, or 4-3, or
3-2, or A.D. 4-5, or ^-6.
Again, as M. Waddlngton, the supreme author
ity on the subject, points out, the normal Interval
between the consulship and the proconsulate of
Asia during Augustus's reign was five or six years.
The only long interval known In that period Is
twelve years, viz., in the case of Cn. Lentulus
Augur, who was consul b.c 14 and proconsul of
* Lentulus was in office in Asia on 10th May, B.C. 1, and there
fore, as Momrasen says, governed during the year 2-1 {Res Gestee
D. Aug., p. 170). But, as Waddington sees {Pastes d'Asie, p. 101),
Lentulus seems to have been still in office on 12th August, and
therefore probably ruled Asia also in the year 1 B.C.- — 1 a.d.

QUIRINIUS THE GOVERNOR OF SYRIA 233
Asia B.C. 2. It is therefore not probable that
Quirinius's proconsulate was postponed oveir such
a long interval as sixteen years (b.c 12 to a.d. 4).
We therefore conclude that he was probably gover
nor of Asia some years between b.c 5 and 2, and
at latest b.c 3-2. Now, his Syrian administration
was earlier, and therefore b.c 4-3 Is the latest that
he can have spent in Syria.
Thus already we find ourselves led to a different
opinion from Mommsen's theory.
3. When Lolllus, the tutor of Augustus's young
grandson Galus Caesar, who was charged with the
arrangement of the Armenian difficulties, died in
A.D. 2, Quirinius was selected as his successor,
obviously on the ground of his great experience In
Eastern service. Thereafter he must have spent
A.D. 3 In Armenia, and probably remained in com
pany with Galus until the latter, coming back
towards Italy wounded and 111, died on the Lyclan
coast on 21st February, a.d. 4.
Zumpt, however, argued that Quirinius was
sent to Armenia with Galus Cassar In b.c i ; and
that afterwards Lolllus took his place. We follow
Mommsen ; but it is obvious how difficult and
slippery the whole career of Quirinius is, and how

234 QUIRINIUS THE GOVERNOR OF SYRIA
slow we should be to condemn Luke for an error
in regard to him.
4. Quirinius married Domitia Leplda at some
unknown date. He afterwards divorced her, and
accused her of attempting to poison him in a.d. 20.
Suetonius mentions, as a fact which roused general
sympathy for Domitia, that the accusation was
brought In the twentieth year after. We ask,
" After what ? " Common-sense shows Mommsen
and others to be right in understanding " the
twentieth year after the marriage " ; we therefore
reject the other interpretation " the twentieth year
after the divorce ".* Mommsen supposes that the
marriage was contracted in a.d. 4, when Quirinius
returned from his honourable duties in Armenia,
and that Suetonius makes a great exaggeration
when he speaks of the twentieth year. But in
such an obscure subject it is surely best to follow
the few authorities whom we have, unless they are
proved to be Inconsistent with known facts. Sue
tonius Is a good authority. Can we not justify him
to some extent .''
* Mr. Furneaux takes the latter sense in his admirable edition
of Tacitus, Annals, iii., 23, and so apparently does Nipperdey also ;
and it must be acknowledged that Suetonius's expression suits
that. Sense and the historical facts, however, show it to be
impossible.

QUIRINIUS THE GOVERNOR OF SYRIA 235
Domitia Leplda had been betrothed to Augus
tus's elder grandson, Lucius Cassar, and on his
premature death was married to Quirinius. Now
Lucius died on 20th August, a.d. 2. But the
Romans of that period showed the minimum
of delicacy in respect of marriages. As soon as
the betrothed husband of a wealthy and noble
heiress died, the place was open to reward some of
Augustus's trusted servants ; and no long delay is
likely to have occurred in giving her a substitute
for Lucius. It Is probable that she was married
to Quirinius In the autumn of a.d. 2, and thus
the accusation was brought against her In the
nineteenth year (according to Roman methods of
counting) from her marriage. In round numbers
the populace would talk of " the twentieth year,"
and thus Suetonius's expression Is justified ; he
professes to be reporting the common talk about
the trial.
We conclude, then, that Quirinius was in Rome
in the autumn of a.d. 2 ; and was then honoured
with this grand marriage and the post of guardian
to the future emperor, Gains Cassar. But such
honours as this imply that his career In preceding
years had been very distinguished. Thus we

236 QUIRINIUS THE GOVERNOR OF SYRIA
become still more firmly convinced that his pro
consulate in Asia was past as well as his govern
ment of Syria, and that these positions, with the
experience in Oriental affairs acquired In them,
marked out Quirinius as the proper person to
guide the inexperienced Gains Cassar, and to set
right the muddle which had been produced by the
headstrong and Ill-regulated conduct of Lolllus,
the previous guardian of the young prince.
These lines of reasoning make it most probable
that the two years during which Quirinius was
administering Syria and conquering the Homo
nadenses cannot have been later than b.c 5-3, and
may have been earlier.
The same result follows from the consideration
that the punishment of the Homonadenses Is not
likely to have been postponed so late as the years
B.C. 3-2. The presence of a tribe of barbarians,
hostile and victorious, on the frontier of the
Roman provinces Galatla and Pamphylla, and ad
joining the dependent kingdom of Cilicia Tracheia
governed by Archelaos, must have been a source of
constant danger. We know that about b.c. 6 the
pacification of the mountainous PIsIdian districts
In the south of the Galatic province was proceeding.

QUIRINIUS THE GOVERNOR OF SYRIA 237
and the system of military roads was being con
structed ; * and this operation was probably co
incident with or even subsequent to the war against
the Homonadenses.
But here we find ourselves face to face with the
difficulty which has determined Professor Momm
sen to place the first Syrian government of Qui
rinius in B.C. 3-1. Quinctilius Varus governed
Syria for at least three years, 7-4 B.c : this is
rendered quite certain by dated coins of Syrian
Antioch struck in his name,t and by the statement
of Tacitus that he was governing Syria during the
disturbances that followed on the death of Herod. J
Sentlus Saturnlnus certainly governed Syria 9-7
B.C., and Josephus says that he was succeeded by
Quinctilius Varus.§ There seems therefore no room
for Quirinius's administration of Syria until we
come down as late as b.c 3 ; yet we have already
seen that other lines of argument prompt us to
place his Syrian government earlier than that
year. In this difficulty I see no outlet in any direction,
* See my Church in the Roman Empire, p. 32 ; C. I. L., iii., No.
6974. t See Note, p. 247. J Probably about 1st April, b.c. 4.
§ Ant. Jud., xvii., 5, 2.

238 QUIRINIUS THE GOVERNOR OF SYRIA
whether favourable or unfavourable to Luke, ex
cept in the supposition that the foreign relations
of Syria, with the command of Its armies, were
entrusted for a time to Quirinius, with a view to his
conducting the difficult and responsible war against
the Homonadenses, while the internal adminis
tration of the province was left to Saturnlnus or to
Varus (according to the period when we place the
mission of Quirinius). This extraordinary com
mand of Quirinius lasted for at least two years,
and had come to an end before the death of Herod
In B.C. 4, for we know on the authority of Tacitus
that the disturbances arising in Palestine on that
event were put down by Varus ; and this trouble,
as belonging to the foreign relations of the Pro
vince, would on our hypothesis have been dealt
with by Quirinius, If he had been still In office.
The question wHl be put, and must be answered,
whether such a temporary division of duties In the
Province Is in accordance with the Roman Im
perial practice. Such a theory Is not permissible,
unless It is defended by analogous cases and by
natural probability. The theory was first sug
gested to my mind by the analogous case of the
African administration, which from the time of

QUIRINIUS THE GOVERNOR OF SYRIA 239
Caligula onwards was divided in such a way, that
the military power, and with it the foreign policy
of the Province, was controlled by a Lieutenant of
Augustus,* while the internal affairs of the Province
were left to the ordinary governor, a Proconsul.
Almost simultaneously with my papers on the
subject there appeared a memoir by Monsieur R.
S. Bour,t In which he quotes some other analogies
to justify this view. He points out that Vespasian
conducted the war in Palestine, while Muclanus
was governor of Syria, from which Palestine was
dependent. Tacitus ^ styles Vespasian dux, which
is not a strictly official title, but exactly describes
his actual duty. He was a Lieutenant of the
reigning Emperor Nero,* holding precisely the
same title and technical rank as Muclanus. We
suppose that Quirinius stood In exactly the same
relation to Varus as Vespasian in regard to Mu
clanus. Quirinius was a special Lieutenant of
Augustus, who conducted the war against the
Homonadenses, while Varus administered the or
dinary affairs of Syria. The duties of Quirinius
might be described by calling him dux in Latin,
* Legatus Augusti pro prcEtore.
j See Note on p. 248. J Hist., l, 10.

240 QUIRINIUS THE GOVERNOR OF SYRIA
and the Greek equivalent Is necessarily and cor
rectly ¦rijefi(l)v, as Luke has It.
Again, Corbulo commanded the armies of
Syria in the war against Parthia and Armenia,
while Ummidlus Quadratus * and Cestius Gallus
were governors of Syria. Josephus speaks of
Gallus, but never mentions the name of Corbulo.
We suppose that Quirinius stood In the same
relative position as Corbulo, and Josephus pre
serves the same silence about both.
The chief difference between the view which
M. Bour holds and the theory which we advocate
Is that he distinguishes this position which Quiri
nius held In b.c 7-6 from the first governorship
of Syria, which, like Mommsen, he places after
B.C. 4. This makes the unnecessary complication
that Quirinius first commanded the Syrian armies,
then after two or three years governed Syria, and
then once more governed Syria. But M. Bour
does not observe that even on the first occasion
Quirinius was legatus Augusti ; and It appears
quite correct to say that in a.d. 6-9 he as legatus
* He was unfit for the war, Moramsen, Rom. Gesch., v., 382 f.
Corbulo governed Syria for a time after Quadratus ; but the,
burden app^^rently was too great, and Gallus was appointed.

QUIRINIUS THE GOVERNOR OF SYRIA 241
Divi Augusti iterum Syria obtinuit, even if he had
not been again governor of Syria after B.c 7-6.
Moreover, In the inscription recording the
career of (probably) Quirinius, there is no pos
sible space to insert a distinct government of
Syria between his successes against the Homona
denses and his second governorship. The inscrip
tion clearly implies that the Homonadenses were
conquered In his first Syrian administration.
It is a matter of secondary Importance that M.
Bour supposes Saturnlnus to have ruled Syria while
the enrolment of Palestine was going on, and yet
acknowledges that this occurred In b.c 7 or 6.
As we have seen, Varus came to govern Syria in
the summer of b.c 7 (see pp. 237, 247).*
The conclusion of the whole argument is this.
About B.C. 8-5, Augustus made a great effort
to pacify the dangerous and troublesome moun
taineers of Taurus, to prevent the continual
plundering which they practised on the peaceable

* M. Bour also finds an allusion to the universal enrolment in
a phrase of the Monumentum Ancyranum where the restored text
was omnium prov[ineiarum censum egi or statum ordinavi] ; but he
has not remarked that the recovered Greek translation proves
the sense and words to have been omnium prov\ineiarum Popidi
Romani! . . . fines auxi. 16

242 QUIRINIUS THE GOVERNOR OF SYRIA
provinces to which they were neighbours, Asia,
Galatla and Syrla-CIlIcIa, and to avenge the death
of the Roman tributary King of Galatla, Amyntas,
in B.C. 25. On the one hand the governor of
Galatla, on the other hand the governor of Syria,
were both required In this work. Part of the
mountaineers' country was nominally part of
the Province Galatia, having been formerly in the
kingdom of Amyntas (which had been transformed
Into the Province Galatla). But Galatia did not
contain an army ; and the administration of Syrla-
Cilicla had always to intervene, when Roman troops
were needed during that period on the eastern
Roman frontiers.
In B.C. 6 the first great step and foundation of
the Roman organisation was in process of being
carried out among the western and northern
mountaineers by Cornutus Aquila, governor of
Galatia. A military road-system was built among
them, and a series of garrison-cities {Colonics) was
founded, Olbasa, Comama, Cremna, Parlais and
Lystra. These fortresses were connected by the
Imperial roads * with the governing centre of
* fiaiTiXiKai SSoi, Church in Rom. Emp., p. 32; Lanckoronski,
Stiidte Pamphyliens, ii., p. 203.

QUIRINIUS THE GOVERNOR OF SYRIA 243
Southern Galatla, the great Colonia Cassarela
Antlochela in Southern Phrygia adjoining Pisidia.
About the same time the military operations
from the side of Syria were carried out. Josephus
tells so much about Saturnlnus, as to make it clear
that he was not engaged in an arduous and difficult
war far away In the Taurus mountains, south from
Iconlum and Lystra. Either the war was later
than his time, or it was conducted by a distinct
official. As to the official's name there Is no doubt.
Strabo * tells us that it was Quirinius who con
quered the Homonadenses and revenged the death
of Amyntas. The period Is, on the whole, likely
to coincide with the connected operations of
Cornutus Aquila on the north-western side.
Accordingly, the probability is that in b.c 7,
when Varus came to govern Syria, Augustus per
ceived that the internal affairs of the province
would require all the energy of the regular
governor, and sent at the same time a special
officer with the usual title. Lieutenant of Augustus,
* Strabo, p. 569. His account certainly suggests both that the
revenge was not delayed so late as Momrasen's view irapiies, and
that a good deal of time was needed to carry out all the operations
involved, the foundation of new cities, the transference of popula
tion, etc.

244 QUIRINIUS THE GOVERNOR OF SYRIA
to administer the military resources of the pro
vince, and specially to conduct the war against the
Homonadenses and any other foreign relations
that demanded military Intervention. Moreover,
Varus had no experience In war ; and an ex
perienced officer was needed. Thus, Quirinius
conducted the war pretty certainly In b.c 6, per
haps in 7 and 6, perhaps in 6 and 5.
The first periodic enrolment of Syria was made
under Saturnlnus in b.c 8-7. The enrolment of
Palestine was delayed by the causes described until
the late summer or autumn of b.c 6. At that
time. Varus was controlling the internal affairs of
Syria, while Quirinius was commanding Its armies
and directing Its foreign policy.
Tertullian, finding that the first periodic enrol
ment In Syria was made under Saturnlnus, inferred
too hastily that the enrolment In Palestine was
made under that governor. With full conscious
ness and intention, he corrects Luke's statement,
and declares that Christ was born during the
census taken by Sentlus Saturnlnus. Luke, more
accurately, says that the enrolment of Palestine
was made while Quirinius was acting as leader
{itytpwv) In Syria.

QUIRINIUS THE GOVERNOR OF SYRIA 245
The question will perhaps be put whether Luke
could rightly describe the authority of Quirinius
by the words " holding the Hegemonia of Syria ".
The preceding exposition leaves no doubt on this
point. The usage of Luke shows that he regards
Hegemonia In the provinces as the attribute both
of the Emperor and of the officers to whom the
Emperor delegates his power. Now that Is quite
true in point of fact. The Emperor primarily
held the supreme authority In Syria (which was
one of the Imperatorial provinces, as distinguished
from those which were administered by the Senate
through the agency of its officers, entitled Pro
consuls). But the Emperor could not himself be
present In Syria or in Palestine, hence he delegated
to substitutes, or Lieutenants, the exercise of his
authority In the various provinces which were
under his own direct power. These substitutes,
when of senatorial rank, bore the title Legatus
Augusti pro prcetore, and when of equestrian rank
the title Procurator cum jure gladii ; but both
Legati a.nd Procuratores are ca.]ledbyhuke Hegemones,
as exercising the Hegemonia that belongs to the
Emperor. Now Quirinius was exercising this delegated

246 QUIRINIUS THE GOVERNOR OF SYRIA
Hegemonia over the armies of the Province Syria,
and It seems quite in keeping with Luke's brief
pregnant style to say that he held the Hegemonia
of Syria.
But why did Luke not name Varus, the ordinary
governor, in place of dating by the extraordinary
officer ? If he had had regard to the suscepti
bilities of modern scholars, and the extreme dearth
of knowledge about the period, which was to exist
1 800 years after he wrote, he would certainly have
named Varus. But he was writing for readers who
could as easily find out about Quirinius as about
Varus, and he had no regard for us of the nine
teenth century. Quirinius ruled for a shorter
time than Varus, and he controlled the foreign
relations of the province, hence he furnished the
best means of dating.
But why did Luke not distinguish clearly between
this enrolment and the later enrolment of a.d. 7,
which was held by Quirinius in Syria and In Pales
tine .f' We answer that he does distinguish,
accurately and clearly. He tells that this was
the first enrolment of the series, but the moderns
are determined to misunderstand him. They in
sist that Luke confused the use of comparative

QUIRINIUS THE GOVERNOR OF SYRIA 247
and superlative in Greek, and that we cannot take
the full force of the word " first " as " first of
many ". They go on to put many other stumbling-
blocks in the way, but none of these cause any
difficulty if we hold fast to the fundamental principle
that Luke was a great historian who wrote good
Greek of the first century kind.
Note I. — Quinctilius Varus, governor of Syria. The exact
date is shown by the coins of Antioch, which bear the numbers
Ke, Ks, /ff, of the Actian era, accompanied by the name of
Varus. Now the battle of Actium was fought on 2nd September,
31. When such an event was taken as an era, the years were
not (as was formerly assumed by many authorities) made to
begin from the anniversary of the event. The years went on
as before ; but the current year in which the event occurred
was reckoned the year i. Hence, in countries where the
Greek year common in the ^gean lands, beginning at the
autumn equinox, was employed, the year i of the Actian era
was B.C. 33-31 (beginning 24th September, 32).
But that system could not be the one which was employed
in reckoning the Actian years at Antioch, for the year 26 in
that case would end in the autumn of b.c 6. Now, coins of
the Actian year 26 mention the twelfth consulship of Augustus,
which did not begin till ist January, b.c 5 ; similarly coins of
the year 29 (ending on that system in autumn b.c 3) men
tioned the thirteenth consulship of Augustus, which did not
begin until ist January, b.c 2.
The Actian years in Antioch were therefore reckoned by a
system in which the years began before 2nd September. It
is probable that the year which was sometimes used in
Syria, beginning on i8th April, may have been employed
also in Antioch. But whatever the exact day of New Year

248 QUIRINIUS THE GOVERNOR OF SYRIA
was, the following table shows the system of Actian years in
Antioch : —
Actian year i ended in spring (perhaps 17th April), b.c. 30
)) )) 25 ,, ,, J) J) ») » " o
JJ )J 37 )) )) }) 5) i} >) »> 4
)> )» 29 ,, „ ,, ,, JJ JJ JJ 2
Varus, therefore, came to Syria at such a time that coins
marked 25 were struck after his arrival, i.e., he arrived pro
bably soon after midsummer of that year, i.e., July to Septem
ber, B.C. 7. He remained in Syria until at least the midsummer
of B.C. 4, some months after the death of Herod.
Note II. — The theory has also been advanced that Quiri
nius was one of a number of commissioners, appointed by
Augustus to hold the enrolment throughout the Roman world,
Quirinius being the commissioner for Syria and Palestine. In
this capacity, also, Quirinius would be a delegate exercising the
Emperor's authority, Legatus Augusti; and therefore he might
rightly be said by Luke rjyefiovfvew rrjs Supi'ar. This theory is
possible ; it offends against no principle of Roman procedure
or of language. It may be the truth. But, on the whole, it
seems to have less in its favour than the one which has been
advocated in the text. M. R. S. Bour* judges of it exactly as
I have done. It was advocated in the summer of 1897 by
Signer O. Marucchi in the Italian review Bessarione.
* L' Inscription de Quirinitis et le Recensement de St. Luc, Rome,
1897 : a treatise crowned by the Pontificia Aecademia di Archeologia.
This skilful argument was presented to the Academy in Dec,
1896, and published in the late summer or autumn of 1897. It
refers in a concluding note to my papers on the sarae subject
in Expositor, April and June, 1897.

PART III.
SOME ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS

SOME ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS 251

CHAPTER XII.
SOME ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS.
A BRIEF reference to some of the other difficulties,
which have been found In Luke's references to
matters of contemporary history, will form a fitting
conclusion to this study.
In some cases all that is wanted to solve the
difficulty is proper understanding of Luke's words.
That, for example, is the case with Acts xi. 28,
where the statement, that in the days of Claudius
there was famine over all the world, has been
misinterpreted to Imply that harvests failed and a
famine ensued in every part of the whole world at
exactly the same time, which would be an obvious
exaggeration, and therefore not entirely trustworthy :
it would be quite In the rhetorical style of Tacitus
or Juvenal, not in the simple and true manner of
Luke. But, as all the commentators have pointed
out, Suetonius, Dion Cassius, Tacitus and Euse-

252 SOME ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS
blus mention scarcity occurring at different times
in widely scattered parts of the Roman world
during that reign ; and an inscription has been
Interpreted (though not with certainty) as referring
to a famine in Asia Minor some years before a.d.
56.* At no period in Roman history are so many
allusions to widespread famine found as under
Claudius. Luke refers to what must then have
been an accepted belief, that at some time or other
during the reign of Claudius every part of the
Roman world suffered from famine.
A much more difficult case occurs in Acts v. 36-
37, where Gamaliel In addressing the Sanhedrin
says : " Before these days rose up Theudas, giving
himself out to be somebody, to whom a number
of men, about 400, joined themselves, who was
slain, and all, as many as obeyed him, were dis
persed and came to nought. And after this man
rose up Judas the Galilean in the days of ' the en
rolment' and caused people to revolt under his
leadership : he also perished ; and all, as many
as obeyed him, were scattered abroad."
Now Josephus describes " a certain magician,
named Theudas, who, while Fadus was Procurator
* St. Paul the Traveller, p. 48 f.

SOME ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS 253
of Judasa, persuaded most of the people * to take up
their property and follow him to the river Jordan ;
for he told them he was a prophet, and he
said that he would divide the river by his com
mand and afford them easy passage through It ;
and he deceived many by telling them this. Fadus,
however, did not permit them to profit by their
folly, but sent a squadron of cavalry against them,
which falling unexpectedly upon them, slew many
of them and captured many alive. And they took
Theudas himself alive and cut off his head and
brought it to Jerusalem " {Ant. Jud., xx., 5, i).
In the following paragraph Josephus describes
what happened under the government of Tiberius
Alexander, the successor of Fadus ; and, among
other things, he tells that " the sons of Judas the
Galilean were slain, viz., that Judas who caused the
people to revolt from the Romans when Quirinius was
making the valuation of Judasa ". See p. 254 note.
It Is pointed out that in two successive para
graphs Josephus speaks first of Theudas and then
of Judas, dating the latter under Quirinius ; and
that in two successive verses Luke speaks first of
Theudas and then of Judas, dating the latter at
' Tbv irXetarov ix^^ov : see p. 258 note.

254 SOME ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS
the great enrolment {i.e., under Quirinius). From
this the inference is drawn that Luke, reading
hurriedly and carelessly the passage of Josephus,
falsely Inferred that Theudas, who is mentioned
first, was the elder ; and they point to the analogy
between the two accounts of Judas,* as evidence
that Luke borrowed from Josephus.
Finally, since Josephus's Theudas rose and fell
several years after Gamaliel Is supposed to have
delivered his speech, they Infer that Luke had no
authority for the words which he puts into Ga
maliel's mouth, but freely invented the whole
according to a common practice among ancient
historians. Luke, as they say, constructed a suit
able speech for Gamaliel out of his own scrappy
and inaccurate reading, and thus made Gamaliel
describe an event that had not yet occurred, sup
posing It to have taken place before a.d. 6.
Without doubt. If this theory is correct, we
must throw up our whole case as hopeless. The
blunder attributed to Luke is so Ingeniously many-
sided as to destroy his credit in various directions.
* iv TOLS ri/iepais rrjs airoypatpris Kal a.Tr€irT7i(re \ahv birlira avTov in
Luke, and rhv Kahv airb 'Paifialiov hTvoin-ii<ravTos 'K.vpiviov tjjs 'lovSaias
rtfjLTjTe^ovTos in Josephus.

SOME ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS 255
It shows that he invented his speeches without
authority ; that he was incapable of reading two
short paragraphs of Greek without misunder
standing them ; that, even when he had a good
authority before him, he could not report his
information without Introducing a portentous
blunder ; that he was so Ignorant of Judasan
history as to think that an event which Josephus
dates under Fadus could be, in the first place, older
than Gamaliel's speech (delivered soon after a.d.
29 or 30), and, in the second place, older than the
great enrolment. The most wretched old chroni
cler, in the worst and most ignorant Byzantine
time, has not succeeded In doing anything so bad
as that. To find a parallel instance of ignorance
and stupidity, where knowledge is professed and
must be expected, one must come down to modern
times and look in the papers of rejected candidates
in a " pass " examination, who have vainly tried,
with the minimum of care and work, to delude
the examiner into the belief that they know enough
to be permitted to scrape through the test.
But is not this too gross a blunder ? Is it cre
dible that a person who was so shockingly ignorant
and inaccurate should aspire to be a historian?

256 SOME ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS
The aspirations of men are usually founded on the
conscious possession of some qualifications for
success. Luke evidently aimed — and probably
was the first to aim — at connecting the story of
the development of Christianity with the course of
general Imperial history. Surely he would not have
aimed at doing so, unless he possessed a certain
moderate knowledge of that history. In his pre
face he declares that his motive for writing his
work was that he was in possession of such ex
ceptionally excellent Information, gained from first-
rate authorities. But -only the grossest Incapacity
and Ignorance combined could have enabled him
to succeed in attaining so colossal a blunder.
The theory seems to me Incredible, irrational,
and psychologically impossible. It is irreconcilable
with the known facts and the character of Luke's
History ; and I am confident that if it had been
stated about any writer who was not a Christian,
it would have been universally treated with the
contempt that It merits. It Is the sort of fancy
that brands its originator and Its believer as either
lacking the critical faculty or blinded by prejudice.
Moreover, the theory is founded on an acci
dental peculiarity of order in the text of Josephus,

SOME ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS 257
and presupposes that Luke was indebted entirely
to one passage of Josephus for his knowledge of
Theudas and Judas. He could hardly have read
any additional authority without acquiring some
more correct idea as to the time when Theudas
lived. It is not here the place to discuss the question
whether Luke had read Josephus. As Dr. San
day* says, the assumption that he used the
Jewish Antiquities " rests on little more than the
fact that both writers relate or allude to the same
events, though the differences between them are
really more marked than the resemblances ". He
adds that " Schuerer f sums up the controversy by
saying that either St. Luke had taken no notice of
Josephus at all, which he thinks the simpler and
more probable supposition, or at once forgot
everything that he had read ". The latter opinion
Is that of a scholar who believes Luke to have
written after Josephus. We hold Luke to have
written before him.
In truth there is between Luke and Josephus
* Bampton Lectures, 1893, p. 278.
t Lucas und Josephus in Zeitschr. f. krit. Theologie, 1876, p. 574
S. Josephus's great work on the Jewish Antiquities was written
about A.D. 93-94. 17

258 SOME ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS
the minimum of resemblance and the maximum of
discrepancy possible between two authorities writing
about the same period, and both (as we believe)
enjoying access to excellent authorities.
Moreover, It Is clear, on the recognised prin
ciples of critical study, that Luke used some other
authority and was not indebted to Josephus alone ;
for he mentions the exact number of persons who
followed Theudas, viz., 400, whereas Josephus
would lead one to believe that Theudas had a very
much larger following.* Thus Luke had other
means of learning the date of Theudas. It may
be answered that Luke invented the number, and
designedly or through incapacity varied from the
account that Josephus gives. 'I'o that no reply
need be given : they who say so will be ready
to declare that Luke, who could read Josephus
and suppose the procurator Fadus to be older
than the great enrolment, was equally capable of
reading any number of additional authorities with
out profiting by them !
We cannot, it is true, tell who was the Theudas
to whom Gamaliel refers. The period is very
obscure ; Josephus Is practically our only authority.
* TrsWfi rhv irKeiirTov ix^ov . . . ?ire<79ai are his words.

SOME ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS 259
He does not allude, or profess to allude, to every
little disturbance on the banks of the Jordan.
There is no real difficulty in believing that more
than one Impostor may have borne or taken the
name Theudas ; that one Theudas, amid the
troubles that followed the death of Herod the
Great (a period about which we have no Informa
tion except that there were great troubles, calling
for the presence of a Roman army from the Province
Syria), or at some earlier time, pretended to be
somebody, and found 400 followers ; and that
another Theudas, about a.d. 44-46, called him
self a prophet, and led after him a great part
of the Jewish people.
The result is, at present, disappointing. We
have to leave the difficulty unsolved. We must
hope for the discovery of further evidence. Mean
time, no one who finds Luke to be a trustworthy
historian in the rest of his History will see any
difficulty in this passage.
But there is good cause to look forward con
fidently to the progress of discovery. The ad
vance In knowledge, due to the increased activity
In searching, has been Immense during recent
years. The whole essay, which has been here set

260 SOME ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS
before the public. Is founded on one discovery ;
and after it was In print, it has been confirmed by
a new find.*
We may suitably conclude the essay with
another discovery, slight In Itself, but significant
of the general trend of advancing knowledge.f
The reference in Acts x. i to an Italic Cohort (of
which Cornelius was a centurion) has caused some
difficulty and discussion in recent years. Some
excellent scholars have entertained the suspicion
that this detail is an anachronism, caused by the
intrusion of circumstances that were true at a later
time into this early period. It is established by
an inscription that an Italic Cohort was stationed
in Syria at a considerably later time ; and the
theory Is that Luke, knowing that such a Cohort
was there at the time when he wrote, either In
correctly added this detail to the story which he
learned about Cornelius, or in some other way
manipulated or Invented the story. What reason
he had for so treating the story, and how precisely
he treated it, the theory does not state. It simply
* See p. 135 f. and Preface, p. x.
tThe following paragraphs are shortened and modified (but
without altering the opinions stated) from an article in the
Expositor, September, 1896.

SOME ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS 261
casts discredit in a vague way on the story, accus
ing It of containing a false detail.*
Among non-theologians, Professor Mommsen
pronounces no judgment, but avoids making any
positive suggestion about the Cohort, in his illumi
native paper In the Sitzungsberichte of the Berlin
Academy, 1895, p. 503. f Marquardt, In the work
from which all study must always begin In these
subjects, Romische Staatsverwaltung, ii., p. 467,
note 5, accepts the words of Acts as an ordinary
authority, quoting them along with other references
to an Italic Cohort. A recent discovery confirms
the position taken by Marquardt, and will probably
be held by most scholars as a sufficient proof that,
In our present state of knowledge, the suspicion
that has been entertained about the reference Is
contrary to the balance of evidence.
Dr. Bormann "^ publishes an Inscription found
recently at Carnuntum, one of the great military
stations in Pannonia, on the south bank of the
Danube, a little below Vienna. It Is the epitaph
* Steht . . vnter dcm Verdacht, Verhdltnisse ciner spatcren
Zeit in eine fruhere zuriick verlegt zu haben.
t Mit Sicherheit vermbgen wir weder diese cohors Augusta (Acts
xxvii. 1) noch die atrilpa 'IraXiK'i} . . zu identifieiren.
\Archdol. Epigr. Mittheil. aus Oesterreich, 1895, p. 218.

262 SOME ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS
of a young soldier, Proculus, a subordinate officer
{optio) In the second Italic Cohort, who died at
Carnuntum while engaged on detached service
from the Syrian army (as an officer in a corps of
archers from Syria, temporarily sent on special
service and encamped at Carnuntum).* Proculus
was born at Philadelphia (doubtless the city of that
name beyond Jordan, the old Rabbath-Ammon),
and his father bore the Syrian name Rabllus.
As to the date of this epitaph, Bormann and
DomaszewskI, two of the highest authorities, have
come Independently to the same conclusion. The
epitaph was found with a group of others, stamped
by criteria derived both from nomenclature, and
from inscriptlonal and alphabetical character, as
belonging to the period of the early emperors.
This group belongs to an older cemetery, which
was In use before a.d. 73, when a new camp near
Carnuntum was built for the soldiers stationed
there. Further, the service on which these Syrian
soldiers had come to Carnuntum can be dated with
the highest probability.
In A.D. 69, Syrian detachments to the number
* Ex vexil. sagit. excr. Syriaci, where Bormann's completion of
the abbreviations seems beyond question ex vexillariis sagittariis
exercitus Syriaci.

SOME ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS 263
of 13,000 men swelled the army which Muclanus,
governor of Syria, led westwards to support Ves
pasian In his struggle against Vitelllus. But before
Muclanus arrived on the scene, the armies of Pan
nonia and Moesia had declared for Vespasian,
marched Into Italy, and finished the contest. Their
departure had left the northern frontier undefended
against the barbarians, Dacians, Germans, etc.,
beyond the Danube. As Tacitus mentions, the
Dacians showed signs of invading Moesia, and
Muclanus despatched the Sixth Legion * to guard
against them on the Lower Danube. Tacitus does
not say anything about the Upper Danube ; but
there also the danger was so obvious, that an ex
perienced governor like Muclanus could hardly
fail to send a guard thither also ; for the words
of Tacitus {Hist., HI., 46) show that he was fully
alive to the danger all along the northern frontier.
In this way we may conclude that part of the de
tachments came to Carnuntum ; and there Proculus
died, perhaps In a.d. 70. The Syrian armies were
evidently soon sent back to the East, where the
Sixth Legion is shortly afterwards mentioned as
* This Legion, called Ferrata, was enrolled by Augustus and
stationed in Syria. It formed part of Mucianus's army in a.d. 69 ;
and it remained in Judsea at least as late as the third century.

264 SOME ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS
engaged In operations In the northern parts of
Syria in 73.
There was therefore an Italic Cohort stationed
in Syria In a.d. 69. It was recruited from
Syria,* and therefore, according to the principle
laid down by Mommsen, It belonged to the
eastern Roman armies. It Is therefore in every
way probable that an Italic Cohort was stationed In
the Province Syria, as Dr. Bormann has observed,
about a.d. 40, when Cornelius Is mentioned as
" a centurion of the Cohort called Italic," resident
in Caesareia (the Roman governmental centre of
Palestine). This discovery, it Is true, does not prove con
clusively that the Italic Cohort, which had been
stationed in Syria before a.d. 69, was there as early
as about a.d. 40. It is not beyond the range of
possibility that the Cohort might have been sent to
Syria between 40 and 69. Movements of troops
from province to province were not rare, and the
Italic Cohort might have been moved In that
Interval. But, In general, the movements were
caused by military requirements which can be
* Proculus was in his seventh year of service when he died, and
had probably enlisted in a.d. 64 (when he was nineteen years old).

SOME ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS 265
ascertained. As Marquardt says of Syria, " the
same Legions remained for centuries In the pro
vince," and they were divided between many
different stations, not massed In single centres : for
example, detachments of the Third Legion called
Gallica, can be traced in SIdon, Beirut, Aera in the
district Auranltis, and Phaena In Trachonltls. The
whole burden of proof, therefore, rests with those
who maintain that a Cohort which was In Syria
before 69 was not there in 40. There Is a
strong probability that Luke is right when he
alludes to that Cohort as part of the Syrian
garrison about a.d. 40.
A series of arguments have been advanced to
buttress this assumption that Luke when he spoke
of an Italic Cohort In Syria about 40 was guilty
of an anachronism.
It is pointed out, in the first place, that between
A.D. 41 and 44, during which period Judasa was
formed Into a dependent kingdom ruled by Herod
Agrippa, a Roman Cohort would not be stationed
In Cassarela. If this were certain. It would merely
confirm the view taken by many scholars that the
Incident of Cornelius occurred earlier than 41.
But as a matter of fact we know far too little of

266 SOME ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS
the relations between the rule of Agrippa and
the provincial administration to be sure that a
centurion would not be resident In Caesareia during
his short reign. There is nothing more obscure
than the precise terms on which the numerous
dependent kingdoms in Asia Minor and Syria
were administered. It is practically certain that
these subject kingdoms were tributary from the
first, even when they had never before been subject
to Rome ; and even Herod the Great's action was
controlled by Rome in many important respects,
and his subjects took an oath to be faithful to the
Romans.* But the Judsan kingdom of Agrippa,
as it existed In a.d. 41-44, had long been actually
part of a Roman province ; and there is great
probability that It might retain certain relations
with the provincial government, and that officers
ot the provincial soldiery might be kept resident
in the capital, Cssarela, to maintain these relations.
There Is much that might be said on this point ;
but it is not necessary for our main purpose.
Moreover, the whole subject Is so obscure that a
scholar who aims simply at understanding the
subject will at present refrain from any dogmatic
* See pp. 178 f., 184.

SOME ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS 267
Statement about it, and will certainly be very slow
to condemn an ancient author for inaccuracy,
because he does not confirm the modern scholar's
hasty conjecture. All that need be said Is that at
present we find the argument so devoid of force
that it hardly even affords any presumption in
favour of a date for the incident of Cornelius
earlier than a.d. 41.
In the next place It has been argued that even
between a.d. 6 and 41, when Judasa was part of
the Province Syria, and when Roman auxiliary
troops were stationed both at Caesareia and at
Jerusalem, an Italic Cohort cannot have been
stationed at Cassarela. This assertion is based on
a series of conjectures as to the Roman forces
stationed in Judasa during these years. It Is
fortunately unnecessary for me to discuss these
conjectures : I need only point out (i) that they
are In direct contradiction to the principles
previously laid down by Mommsen, the supreme
authority on the subject ; * (2) that Mommsen has
now considered them and judged them to be " erro
neous In every respect ".f
* See Moramsen in Hermes, xix., p. 217.
i In jeder Hinsieht verfehlt, Mommsen in Berlin. Akad. Sitz.,
1895, p. 501.

268 SOME ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS
But, further, even supposing that these con
jectures were strong enough to support the
conclusion that the Italic Cohort was not stationed
in Cassarela, we know far too little to justify the
Inference that a centurion of that Cohort could not
be on duty there, detached from his Cohort on
special service. The entire subject of detach
ment-service Is most obscure ; and we are very far
from being able to say with certainty that the
presence of an auxiliary centurion * In Cassarela is
impossible, unless the Cohort in which he was an
officer was stationed there.
Since the question of the Roman troops in
Palestine Is so full of difficulties, that it Is hardly
possible to make any assertion In the matter, what
judgment should be pronounced on the light-
heartedness which suspects Luke of Inaccuracy, be
cause he does not conform to the conjectures which
some distinguished German professor sets forth ?
It is a matter of Interest to observe how slow some
very learned New Testament scholars are to
appreciate the principle, which Is regarded as
fundamental by the historical and antiquarian
* Auxiliary centurions, being of lower rank than legionary,
were not employed as frumentarii (like Julius in Acts xxvii.) ; but
there were other ways of detached service.

SOME ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS 269
Students, that no conjecture which is not founded
on clear evidence has any right even to be pro
pounded. If it contradicts the direct statement of
an ancient authority. Much less ought the ancient
authority to be discredited because he disagrees
with a loose and disputed modern conjecture.
The episode of Cornelius in Acts is characterised
by that vagueness and want of direct, incisive
statement of details, which Luke shows in handling
the early history of the Church in Palestine. He
was not at home In the province of Syria, and the
Jewish people in particular he neither understood
nor liked. If the narrative of Cornelius showed
the same mastery of facts and surroundings as
is apparent in Phillppi or Ephesus or Cyprus or
Athens, we should find it far more instructive than
It Is as to the way in which an officer of the Roman
army of occupation lived. Was he resident In a
private house ? How was he In such close rela
tions with the Jews throughout Palestine ? Many
questions suggest themselves, pressing for an
answer, which I cannot give. But the tendency of
discovery distinctly is, in this as In other cases, to
confirm the trustworthiness of the general situa
tion.

APPENDIX
SPECIMENS OF THE DOCUMENTS

APPENDIX: DOCUMENTS 273
THE INSCRIPTION OF QUIRINIUS
(LAPIS TIBURTINUS).
GEM • QVA • REDACTA • INPOI
AVGVSTI • POPVLIQVE • ROMANI • SENATV
SVPPLICATIONES • BINAS • OB • RES • PROSP
IPSI • ORNAMENTA ¦ TRIVMPI
PRO • CONSVL • ASIAM • PROVINCIAM • OP
DIVI • AVGVSTI • ITERVM • SYRIAM ¦ ET • PH
The following restoration is often doubtful : —
P. Sulpicius P.F. Quirinius cos., datus rector Gaio
Caesari Divi Augusti nepoti 

Pr., pro consule Cretam et Cyrenas provinciam
optinens Marmaridas et Garamantas subegit
Legatus pro praetore Divi Augusti Syriacas legio-
nes optinens bellum gessit cum gente Homonad-
ensium quae interfecerat Amyntam Galatarum
r^gem, qua redacta in potestatem Imp. Caesaris
Augusti Populique Romani, Senatuj' dis immortalibus
supplicationes binas ob res prospers ab eo gestas, et
ipsi ornamenta trlumphi^/z'^ decrevit
Proconsul Aslam provinciam optinuit, legatus pr. pr.
Divi Augusti iterum Syriam et Vhoenicen provinciam
optinens regnum Archelai in provinciae formam redegit.
13

274 APPENDIX: DOCUMENTS
THE INSCRIPTION OF AEMILIUS SECUNDUS
(LAPIS VENETUS).
Q • AEMILIVS • Q • F
PAL • SECVNDVS in
CASTRIS ¦ DIVI • AVG • S«6
P • SVLPIcIO ¦ QVIRINIO " LEn aug.
6 CaESARIS ' SYRIAE • HONORI
BVS • DECORATVS • PRaEFECT
COHORT • AVG ' I ' PRaEFECT
COHORT • II • CLASSICAE ' IDEM

IVSSV • QVIRINI • CENSVM ' EgI
 '
10 APAMENAE " CIVITATIS • MIL

livm • homin • civivm " cxvii
Idem • missv • qvirini • adversvs
itvraeos • in • libano • monte '
CASTELLVM " EORVM " CEPI • ET " AnTe
IB mIlITIEM • PRAEFECT • FABRVM •
DELATVS • A • DVOBVS • COS ' AD • AE
rarivm et • in • colonia •
qvaestor • aedil • ii • dvvmvir • ii
pontifexs
20 ibi ¦ positi • svnt • q "aemilivs-q-f • pal
secvndvs-f-et-aemilia-chIa-lib
h • m • amplivs-h-n's-

APPENDIX: DOCUMENTS

THE ITALIC COHORT INSCRIPTION
(LAPIS CARNUNTENSIS).
PROCVLVS
RABILI • F • COL •
PHILADEL • MIL-
OPTIO • COH • II
ITALIC • C • R • F
TINI • EX • VEXIL • SA
GIT • EXER • SYRIACI
STIP ¦ VII • VIXIT • AN
XXVI
APVLEIVS • FRATE
F- C-

Proculus Rabili f{ilius)
Col{lina) Philadcl(phia)
mil(es) optio coh{ortis) II
Italic{ae) c{i:'inm) R{oma-
jiorum eenturin) Elausy-ini,
ex vexil{lariis ?) sagit(ta-
riis ?) £xcr(citus) Syriaci
stip(endiorum) VII ; vixit
an(nos) XXVI. Apuleius
frate(r) f(aciuiidum) c{ura-
vit).

276 APPENDIX: DOCUMENTS
RATING PAPER: 'Airoypa^i^.
M?)rj000ft)|0(K( ETTtyUeXlJTJJt
irapa ATTvyyio^ Icajowrioc
l£X\r)V(>pep(j>'iTriQ^''^ - A.Troypa(popai
Kara to sktsOiv irpoaraypa
\ f / /sic ' '
T-rjv VTTupyvaav fxoi oiKiav
Kai atiXj)^"- SI' TWL EXAr/ctfot £1" rotrwi Iptv-
crflwr 'iep<i}i,^ri(; fxirpa tt(c /^fi' oiKiaq ^{yj-^^iii;) Ka ettI 7r(i)YEig)fy,
rjjc Se avXrje 7r()))^£ic) S eiri 7r(77^Eic) [ . . ],
yEtroi'EC Trpoc I'OTOi' oi/cio Tapi^aiTO^
^avijjTO^, TTjOOC f3oppav HaaiTOQ 'Apiaviog
Kai ooot ava ptaov, irpoi; Xlf^a
ffiTOTTOEioi' /ioi) (ca( oooc ava piaof,
irpog aTrrjAiwrrjc T]oKavg ITeTETrr . i". og.
Tavrri)' ovv Tipiopai {pa\fi(j)v) S' (= 4000).
Kat a\Xr)v oiKiav, tv p (titottoioDith',
^ ^ \ ^ sic ''' / " V * '
Kai avAri, uiu p^rpa Tr\Q pev n/ctac
pirpa 7r(i)'^Eic) Ka em 7r(ij')^E[c) ly, Kai rrjc aiiXrjc Tr{ri-\(tig) c
£771 7r(?)'^Etc) ly, ySlTOVSQ OvV(il(j>pt^ ' QpOV OIKIU^,
TTjOOC poppav Y\a(jiTOQ TOV ApiavioQ Kal oCog
ava piaov, TrpoQ Xij3a ^s(j)epyripiog
nf •. 1 ^ r r / s
a-yjparov, npoQ aTTriAiwTrjv r] ¦ wpoyeypapEvt)
oiKia Kai ocoQ ava peaov. lavTriv ovv
Tipiopai vaX/coO {cpayuiAiv) j3 (= 2000)
/ Ta(\avTOv) a.

sic

APPENDIX: DOCUMENTS 277
RATING PAPER : 'k-Koypa^-^, (A.D. 59-60).
A[vT]t[-yj(Oa^oi' [a7r]o-yj0a[(^]^C.
Appwviu) [/cat .... jioJt 7[i'ju]i'a[ff'a|o]x('p)
(3i(5\io(pvXa^i [rrjc £]i' ' Apvivoii[T{(l)v) 7roX(£t)]
SjjjUOffiac j3ij3[X(o0r)/c]j}g
wapa Ha . . ^Ei'£([ . . . j Uaijaiog tov Mvo(c)
upiwQ Twv a[7r6] KojOaviSoc ttiq Hjo(aKXEioou)
pipiooQ. Kara ra iitto tou KpaTiuTOv
riyipovoQ AivKiQv louXi'ow OurjOTEll'OU
irpoaTiTaypeva airoypa^opai uq
Tt}v iveaTiijaav -ripepav Ta vrap'^ovTa
poi ovta KaOapa airo te o^t'Xrjc Kat
v[Tr\odr)KTi^ Kai TfaVToq Suyyvr)paTO(;
£c Tp TrpoKHpevTii Kwfirii TTarpiKov
Tp'iTov pkpOQ oiKiaQ Kal avXriQ, Kai ^eiXovg
TOTTOvc; piKwv Cvo 7)piaovQ, ovQ ¦tiyopa-
<ja napa MECTOrjpiOG tov ^SKiptpijJTog
tCh £ (etei) NipiDvog KXavSiov Kattrajooc A.D. 58/59.
SEpaffTov r£|Ojua»'iK:ot) AvTOKparopoQ,
Kai tv Ty Kiiipr)i oiKiav, r]v r/yopaaa
TTapa ' Ovvb)^\p'\io<^ TOV WtTiopa'nnoc,
rwi c (fTEi) NejOwi/oc KXavSiov Kaio-ajOOC A.D. 59/60.
SEjSatrrov rEjOjUai'tKov AvTOKpaTopoQ.
''Oti S' av airo To\yT^tx)v i^oiKOVopyaio
T) Kat TTjOOo'a-yoijoJaffttft, irpoTipov
wporrayytXCji (I>c EKEXEVtrtfi/i.^"^

278 APPENDIX: DOCUMENTS
HOUSEHOLD ENROLMENT PAPER OF THE
CENSUS OF A.D. 187-8: 'A7roypa<t>rj (car okiW.
AptrOKpaTlMVl TO) KOt 'lE|0a[/Ct]
pa<nX{iKif>) yp{appaTii) ' Ap<yi{voiTOv) HpaKX(£iSov) pt-
Trapa 'Icriwvog IlaTpwvoq (Oi[Soc]
TOV Kai ITaraXou i^r\pi\Tpi.ov
prfTpoQ \ovaap'iov KaToiK\j)vj
'^[}'}ayp{a(j)opEvov) ett aficjiocov rv^Ma^criovJ.
YTrajOVEi poi ETT afi(j>6oov
AttoXXwv'iov najO£ju|3oX[rjc]
cKTov pipog OLKiaQ Kai ai-
dp'iov Kat avXr)<;, ev lii KaTOiKio,
Kat aTroyp{a<j)opai) epavTOV Kal ro[vcj
epovQ eig t'tjv tov ctEXrj-
\v0OTOc Kri (ctovq) Avp-qXiov A.D. 187/8.
Ko/UjUOOOV AvTwveivov
KaiaapoQ tov Kvp'iov [/car oiK{iav)j
anoyp{afT]v). Kat Ei^ut 'la'twv [o 7rpo\-
yeyp{appevoQ) KaToiK{oc;) e'7nK\eKpipe\-
vog epyaTTic; (trwc) t2![, Kat T'rjv o-
fiOTraT{piov) Kat opOfiriT{pi6v) pov
aceXfrjv Upw'iSa KaToiK{ov)
{eTU)v) tS a(T-n{pov) aTroy£yp{appevr}v) rp 7rpoT{ipa) atro-
yp\a(p-^) eiri tov aiir(ov) apfocov r[v|U»'a(Ti'oi)J.
Aio eTTicioojpi. (' Erovc) k9
AvprfXiov KoUjUoSov 'Ai/r(<j[i'iVov]
Kaicrapog tov Kvpiov M.eao{pri) £7r[a-y(o^£i'(Zii') e ?]
[28.] Aug. A.D. 1 ;

APPENDIX: DOCUMENTS 279

HOUSEHOLD ENROLMENT PAPER OF THE
CENSUS OF A.D. 187-8 : 'ATroypa^^ kot okiW.
\_ApTr]oKpaTi(i)vt, Till \_Ka\ IejOokJi j3a(7iX(iKw) yp{app-
UTei) Ap(n{voiTov) HjOaKXEiSou ;U£jo[iSoc ' | Tr]apa
Hpiooov ' HjOti)[i/oc Tovj H(OaK:X£iSou priTpog ^'iprjvrig
a[7ro] TTIQ p-nTpoTToXewQ I [ai'a'yjo(a(^0)U£i'ov)] ett' ap^o-
oov TaYfieitiJV • VTraJjO^Ei ^uoi etr ap(j)6Sov BtOvi'dJi'
aXX[aji' TJoTTiov SiKaTov \\ \jJiepojg o'lKiag, ev ig /caT[o]i-
k{(o), [/ca( a7ro-y]jo(a^0|uat) epavTOV Ka\ Tovg epovg e'lg
T-ijV t[oV St]EX(»jXu0Oroe) KIJ vT" (I.e. ETOVc) Al)|0J)Xl0V I
[KojUj/iooou Aj'rwi'£ti'[ou Kaitrajoojc tov Kvp'iov kot'
oiK{iav) aTroyp{aip^riv) <iaTreyp{a\papt}v)'^. Kal [ei/uI]
HjOwSr/c o TTjOO I [•y£-y|o(a^/iC)/oc)] Xaoyp{a(povpevog)
¦yEjOetoc L (i.e. eTiLv) V \_Kai 7171'] yvvaiKa pov ovaav
Kal aStXipriv "Eipr]vriv L vS Kal k\^ \^apj(j>OTepwv TSKva
' iiyiwva ¦yEjOOiJoi' L kO Kat NeiXoc aXXoi' •Y/01)(J'oyov(i')
L Kg Kat 2apa7ri' I [o/i'a p-tfj avayeyp{appevov) ev ETTt-yE-
"y[E»'r/jLt(Ei'otc) L . . fcjat H|Oa/cXE(or)i' L 0 Kat ^vwopav
L ^ ufKpOTipovg pr\ || [ai'a'y£j-y|o(a/iyUEi'ovc) ev eiriyeyevr}-
p{evoig), Ka\j  Ji' L K-y koi NEtXXtati'ai' oxxrav tov
' Hpwvog yvvaiKa \ [L . . Kai\ Qaiaapiov L i^ K\^ai to.
TOV ' H|o]<£>i'Of^ Kat rrjc NeiXXo (Vrjc TEKva HpwBrjv Kal
Tpv(j)(i)va I [ajU^oJrEjOovc ciovpa ¦y£i'[o/i(£>'ovc) pi) aMaJ-
yey p{appevovg) ev eTnyeyevr\p{evoig) L a- Kal tov ^eiXov
yvvaiKa 0£|O/tov»| [flaptoji' KaoTopog tov ''lip\jiov^og

280 APPENDIX: DOCUMENTS
plriJTpog 'Im^wpag arro rrig iJiriTpo{'7r6Xeb)g) L kB Kal
et, ap(j>0T{eptj)vj TEKva | [  \va L f Ka t ' HjOtin/a
aju^[o]T(£'(0ovc) |U') avayeyp{appevovg) ev eTTiyeyevn-
p{evoigj • Kat to. tov [T£jrEX(£vr)jKoroc) pov aoeX(pov \\
I HjOokXeiSov tekJi'o ''Upwva nt^Tpog ^i\^pjrivr)g pa(3Bi(T-
T-qv L XS Kai 'ATTtwca priTpog Trig \ [avrjfjc epyaTtiv
L kS Kat 'HjOaKXE/'Sjji' -^pvao-^ovv L. lO Kal Qaiaapiov
ovaav TOV ' Hptuvog \ [yvcaiKja i-. i^ Kat e^ ap<l>OT{cpwvj
dvyaTcpa ^vpav L a- Kai evoiKovg' NetXci* AripriTpiov
TOV I [  J prirpog Qaiaapiov Xaoyp{a(l>ovpevov)
[ojvriXaTtiv L ^tS Kat Trjv tovtov yvvaiKa ovaav Kai
aSfXi^i^ili' Eijprji'rji' L vj3 Kat e^ ap<jtOTepwv viov Kaff-
ropa p-rj avayeyp{apptvov) ev ewiyeyevripUvoig) L jj ||
[koi tovc] ttjc •7rpoyeyp{appevr)g) QeppovOapiov opo-
waTpiov Kai opofxriTpiov aceXipovg HjOtiii'a pa(5cia\Triv
Xa\oyp{a(j>ovpevov) L Xo Kat MEXai'ai' Kriirovpbv L Xj3
Kat ' Hpwva H(OaKX£io[ov rjov ' Hpiovog | t ^jjrjoojc
AtSv/iJjG Xaoyp{a(j>ovpevov) epyaTtiv L Kg Kal rjji/
TOVTOV o/iio(7raTjOtoi') Kat oyUOjiir)[TjO(oi'] aSeX(j)riv | [. . .
 jriv L K-y- TraVTac Tovg [. . . . Jeiov^ crvvaTTO-
ypa(j>evTag poi Tin To[y tS L MapKov j AvjOjrjXiov
Ai'T&JCt'i'ov aTroyp{a<p'>^) £iri tov irpoKeipevov apfoCov
Tapei(i)[y • Sto ettiS/JSoijUI. ||  ETriSeStoKa ....
. . II [kC LJ AvptiXlov KojU/ioSov ' Ai'rti([i' tVov Kaiaapog
Toi Kvp'iov  ] . (= A.D. 188/189).

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08837 4906

•^^

l^'.

¦k..-K