Luke 2:1

It is said -that there is no trace of such a decree in secular history." The answer is that (α) the argumentum e silentiois here specially invalid because there happens to be a singular deficiency of minute records respecting this epoch in the -profane" historians. The history of Nicolaus of Damascus, the flatterer of Herod, is not extant. Tacitus barely touches on this period (Ann.i. 1, "paucade Augusto"). There is a hiatus in Dion Cassius from a.u.c. 748 752. Josephus does not enter upon the history of these years. (β) There aredistinct tracesthat such a census took place. Augustus with his own hand drew up a Rationariumof the Empire (a sort of Roman Doomsday Book, afterwards epitomised into a Breviarium), which included the allied kingdoms (Tac. Ann. i. 11; Suet. Aug. 28), and appointed twenty Commissioners to draw up the necessary lists (Suidas s. v. ἀπογραφή).

2. It is said -that in any case Herod, being a rex socius(for Judaea was not annexed to the Province of Syria till the death of Archelaus, a. d. 6), would have been exempt from such a registration." The answer is that (α) the Clitae were obliged to furnish such a census though they were under an independent prince, Archelaus (Tac. Ann. vi. 41; cf. I. ii, regna). (β) That Herod, a mere creature of the Emperor, would have been the last person to resist his wishes (Jos. Antt.xiv. 14. 4; xv. 6. 7; xvi. 9. 3). (γ) That this Census, enforced by Herod, was so distasteful to the Jews that it probably caused the unexplained tumults which occurred at this very period (Jos. Antt.xvii. 2. 4; B. J.i. 33, § 2). This is rendered more probable by the Targum of Jonathan on Habakkuk 3:17, which has, "the Romans shall be rooted out; they shall collect no more tribute (Kesooma=census) from Jerusalem" (Gfrörer, Jahrh. d. Heils, i. 42). That the Emperor could issue such a decree for Palestine shews that the fulfilment of the old Messianic promises was near at hand. The sceptre had departed from Judah; the Lawgiver from between his feet.

As regards both objections, we may say (i) that St Luke, a writer of proved carefulness and accuracy, writing for Gentiles who could at once have detected and exposed an error of this kind, is very unlikely (taking the lowest grounds) to have been guilty of such carelessness. (ii) That Justin Martyr, a native of Palestine, writing in the middle of the second century, three times appeals to the census-lists (ἀπογραφαὶ) made by Quirinus when he was first Procurator, bidding the Romans search their own archives as to the fact (Apol.i. 34, 46; Dial. c. Tryph.78), as also does Tertullian (Adv. Marc.iv. 7. 19). (iii) If St Luke had made a mistake it would certainly have been challenged by such able critics as Celsus and Porphyry; but they never impugn his statement. On every ground therefore we have reason to trust the statement of St Luke, and in this as in many other instances (see my Life of St Paul, i. 113) what have been treated as his -manifest errors" have turned out to be interesting historic facts which he alone preserves for us.

all the world Rather, the habitable world, i. e. the Roman Empire, the orbis terrarum(Acts 11:28, &c.; Polyb. vi. 50).