Luke 2:1-7

1. The Birth of Jesus: Luke 2:1-7. And first a historical note: Luke 2:1-2.

The words in those days refer to the time which followed the birth of John the Baptist, and give the remark in Luke 1:80 an anticipatory character. Δόγμα denotes, in classical Greek, any edict of a recognised authority. The use of the word ἐξελθεῖν, to go forth, in the sense of being published, answers to the meaning of א, Daniel 9:2-3. The term ἀπογραφή, description, denotes among the Romans the inscription on an official register of the name, age, profession, and fortune of each head of a family, and of the number of his children, with a view to the assessment of a tax. The fiscal taxation which followed was more particularly indicated by the term ἀποτίμησις.

Criticism raises several objections against the truth of the fact related in ver. Luke 1:1 st, No historian of the time mentions such a decree of Augustus. 2 d, On the supposition that Augustus had issued such an edict, it would not have been applicable to the states of Herod in general, nor to Judea in particular, since this country was not reduced to a Roman province until ten or eleven years later the year 6 of our era. 3 d, A Roman edict, executed within the states of Herod, must have been executed according to Roman forms; and according to these, it would have been in no way necessary for Joseph to put in an appearance at Bethlehem; for, according to Roman law, registration was made at the place of birth or residence, and not at the place where the family originated. 4 th, Even admitting the necessity of removal in the case of Joseph, this obligation did not extend to Mary, who, as a woman, was not liable to registration.

In order to meet some of these difficulties, Hug has limited the meaning of the words, all the earth, to Palestine. But the connection of this expression with the name Caesar Augustus will not allow of our accepting this explanation; besides which, it leaves several of the difficulties indicated untouched. The reader who feels any confidence in Luke's narrative, and who is desirous of solving its difficulties, will find, we think, a solution resulting from the following facts:

From the commencement of his reign, Augustus always aimed at a stronger centralization of the empire. Already, under Julius Caesar, there had been undertaken, with a view to a more exact assessment of taxation, a great statistical work, a complete survey of the empire, descriptio orbis. This work, which occupied thirty-two years, was only finished under Augustus. This prince never ceased to labour in the same direction. After his death, Tiberius caused to be read in the Senate, in accordance with instructions contained in the will of Augustus, a statistical document, which applied not only to the empire properly so called, but also to the allied kingdoms, a category to which the states of Herod belonged. This document, called Breviarium totius imperii, was written entirely by Augustus' own hand. It gave “the number of the citizens and of allies under arms, of the fleets, of the kingdoms, of the provinces, of the tributes or taxes. ” The compilation of such a document as this necessarily supposes a previous statistical labour, comprehending not only the empire proper, but also the allied states. And if Augustus had ordered this work, Herod, whose kingdom belonged to the number of regna reddita, could not have refused to take part in it.

The silence of historians in regard to this fact proves simply nothing against its reality. Wieseler gives a host of examples of similar omissions. The great statistical work previously accomplished by Julius Caesar, and about which no one can entertain a doubt, is not noticed by any historian of the time. Josephus, in his Jewish War, written before his Antiquities, when giving an account of the government of Coponius, does not mention even the census of Quirinius. Then it must not be forgotten that one of our principal sources for the life of Augustus, Dion Cassius, presents a blank for just the years 748-750 U.C.

Besides, this silence is amply compensated for by the positive information we find in later writers. Thus, Tertullian mentions, as a well-known fact, “the census taken in Judea under Augustus by Sentius Saturnius,” that is to say, from 744-748 U.C., and consequently only a short time before the death of Herod in 750. The accounts of Cassiodorus and Suidas leave no doubt as to the great statistical labours accomplished by the orders of Augustus. The latter says expressly: “Caesar Augustus, having chosen twenty men of the greatest ability, sent them into all the countries of the subject nations (τῶν ὑπηκόων), and caused them to make a registration (ἀπογραφάς) of men and property (τῶντε ἀνθρώπων καὶ οὐσιῶν).” These details are not furnished by Luke. And if the task of these commissioners specially referred, as Suidas says, to the subject nations, the omission of all mention of this measure in the historians of the time is more easily accounted for.

Surprise is expressed at an edict of Augustus having reference to the states of Herod. But Herod's independence was only relative. There is no money known to have been coined in his name; the silver coin circulating in his dominions was Roman. From the time of the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey, the Jews paid the Romans a double tribute, a polltax and a land-tax. Tacitus also speaks of complaints from Syria and Judea against the taxes which burdened them. Further, the Jews had quite recently, according to Josephus, been obliged to take individually an oath of obedience to the emperor (Antiq. 17.2. 4). The application of a decree of Augustus to the dominions of Herod, a simple vassal of the emperor, presents, therefore, nothing improbable. Only it is evident that the emperor, in the execution of the decree, would take care to respect in form the sovereignty of the king, and to execute it altogether by his instrumentality. Besides, it was the custom of the Romans, especially in their fiscal measures, always to act by means of the local authorities, and to conform as far as possible to national usages. Augustus would not depart from this method in regard to Herod, who was generally an object of favour.

And this observation overthrows another objection, namely, that according to Roman custom, Joseph would not have to present himself in the place where his family originated, since the census was taken at the place of residence. But Roman usage did not prevail here. In conformity with the remnant of independence which Judea still enjoyed, the census demanded by the emperor would certainly be executed according to Jewish forms. These, doubtless, were adapted to the ancient constitution of tribes and families, the basis of Israelitish organization: this mode was at once the simplest, since the greater part of the families still lived on their hereditary possessions, and the surest, inasmuch as families that had removed would be anxious to strengthen a link on which might depend questions of inheritance and other rights besides. That which distinguished the census of Quirinius, ten years later, from all similar undertakings that had preceded it, was just this, that on this occasion the Roman authority as such executed it, without the intervention of the national power and Jewish customs. Then, accordingly, the people keenly felt the reality of their subjection, and broke into revolt. And history has preserved scarcely any record of similar measures which preceded this eventful census.

As to Mary, we may explain without any difficulty the reasons which induced her to accompany Joseph. If, at Luke 2:5, we make the words with Mary depend specially on the verb in order to be enrolled, the fact may be explained by the circumstance that, according to Roman law, women among conquered nations were subject to the capitation tax. Ulpian expressly says this (De censibus): “that in Syria (this term comprehends Palestine) men are liable to the capitation from their fourteenth year, women from their twelfth to their sixtieth.” Perhaps women were sometimes summoned to appear in person, in order that their age might be ascertained. Or, indeed, we may suppose that Mary was the sole representative of one of the branches of her tribe, an heiress, which obliged her to appear in person. Perhaps, also, by the inscription of her name she was anxious to establish anew, in view of her son, her descent from the family of David. But we may join the words with Mary to the verb went up. The motives which would induce Mary to accompany Joseph in this journey are obvious. If, in the whole course of the Gospel history, we never see the least reflection cast on the reputation of Mary, although only six months had elapsed between her marriage and the birth of Jesus, is not this circumstance explained by the very fact of this journey, which providentially removed Joseph and Mary from Nazareth for a sufficient length of time, just when the birth took place? Mary must have recognised the finger of God in the event which compelled Joseph to leave home, and have been anxious to accompany him.

But a much more serious difficulty than any of the preceding arises relative to Luke 2:2. If this verse is translated, as it usually is, “ This census, which was the first, took place when Quirinius governed Syria,” we must suppose, on account of what precedes, that Quirinius filled this office before the death of Herod. But history proves that Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until the year 4, and that he did not execute the enumeration which bears his name until the year 6 of our era, after the deposition of Archelaus, the son and successor of Herod, that is to say, ten years at least after the birth of Jesus. It was Varus who was governor of Syria at the death of Herod.

An attempt has been made to solve this difficulty by correcting the text: Theodore de Beza by making Luke 2:2 an interpolation; Michaelis by adding the words πρὸ τῆς after ἐγένετο : “This enumeration took place before that which Quirinius executed...” These are conjectures without foundation.

Again, it has been proposed to give the word πρώτη, first, a meaning more or less unusual. And accordingly, some translate this word as primus is sometimes to be taken in Latin, and as erst regularly in German: “This census was executed only when...” (prima accedit cum, geschah erst als). Such a Latinism is hardly admissible. And besides, if the execution had not followed the decree immediately (as the translation supposes), how could the decree have led to the removal of Joseph and the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem while Herod was still reigning?

An interpretation of the word πρώτη which is scarcely less forced, has been adopted by Tholuck, Ewald, Wieseler (who maintains and defends it at length in his last work), and Pressensé (in his Vie de Jésus). Relying on John 1:15, πρώτος μου, Luke 15:18, πρώτον ὑμῶν, they give to πρώτη the sense of προτέρα, and explain πρώτη ἡγεμονεύοντος as if it were πρότερον ἢ ἡγεμονεύειν; which results in the following translation: “This enumeration took place before Quirinius...” They cite from the LXX. Jeremiah 29:2, ὕστερον ἐξελθόντος ᾿Ιεχονίου, “after Jechonias was gone forth;” and from Plato, ὕστεροι ἀφίκοντο τῆς ἐν Μαραθῶνι μάχης γενομένης, “ they arrived after the battle of Marathon had taken place. ” But this accumulation of two irregularities, the employment of the superlative for the comparative, and of the comparative adjective for the adverb, is not admissible in such a writer as Luke, whose style is generally perfectly lucid, especially if, with Wieseler, after having given to πρώτη the sense of a comparative, we want to keep, in addition, its superlative meaning: “This enumeration took place as a first one, and before that...” This certainly goes beyond all limits of what is possible, whatever the high philological authorities may say for it, upon whose support this author thinks he can rely.

Another attempt at interpretation, proposed by Ebrard, sets out from a distinction between the meaning of ἀπογράφεσθαι (Luke 2:1) and of ἀπογραφή (Luke 2:2). The former of these two interpretations may denote the registration, the second the pecuniary taxation which resulted from it (the ἀποτίμησις); and this difference of meaning would be indicated by the pronoun αυτη, which it would be necessary to read αὐτή (ipsa), and not αὕτη (ea). “As to the taxation itself (which followed the registration), it took place only when Quirinius was...” But why, in this case, did not Luke employ, in the second verse, another word than ἀπογραφή, which evidently recalled the ἀπογράφεσθαι of Luke 2:1 ? Köhler acknowledged that these two words should have an identical meaning; but, with Paulus, Lange, and others, he thinks he can distinguish between the publication of the decree (Luke 2:1) and its execution (Luke 2:2), which only took place ten years afterwards, and, with this meaning, put the accent on ἐγένετο : “Caesar Augustus published a decree (Luke 2:1), and the registration decreed by him was executed (only) when Quirinius...” (Luke 2:2). But the difficulty is to see how this decree, if it was not immediately enforced, could induce the removal of Joseph and Mary Köhler replies that the measure decreed began to be carried into execution; but on account of the disturbances which it excited it was soon suspended, and that it was only resumed and completely carried out (ἐγένετο) under Quirinius. This explanation is ingenious, but very artificial. And further, it does not suit the context. Luke, after having positively denied the execution of the measure (Luke 2:2), would relate afterwards (Luke 2:3 and ff.), without the least explanation, a fact which has no meaning, but on the supposition of the immediate execution of this decree!

There remain a number of attempted solutions which rely on history rather than philology. As far as the text is concerned, they may be classed with the ordinary explanation which treats the words ἡγεμονεύοντος Κυρηνίου as a genitive absolute. Several of the older expositors, as Casaubon, Sanclemente, and more recently Hug and Neander, starting with the fact that before Quirinius was governor of Syria he took a considerable part in the affairs of the East (Tac. Ann. 3.48), supposed that he presided over the census, of which Luke here speaks, in the character of an imperial commissioner. Luke, they think, applied to this temporary jurisdiction the term ἡγεμονεύειν, which ordinarily denotes the function of a governor in the proper sense of the term. Zumpt even believed he could prove that Quirinius had been twice governor of Syria, in the proper sense of the word, and that it was during the former of these two administrations that he presided over the census mentioned by Luke. Mommsen also admits the fact of the double administration of Quirinius as governor of Syria. He relies particularly on a tumular inscription discovered in 1764, which, if it refers to Quirinius, would seem to say that this person had been governor of Syria on two occasions (iterum). But does this inscription really refer to Quirinius? And has the term iterum all the force which is given to it? Wieseler clearly shows that these questions are not yet determined with any certainty. And supposing even that this double administration of Quirinius could be proved, the former, which is the one with which we are concerned here, could not have been, as Zumpt acknowledges, until from the end of 750 to 753 U.C. Now it is indisputable that at this time Herod had been dead some months (the spring of 750), and consequently, according to the text of Luke, Jesus was already born. One thing, however, is certain, that Quirinius, a person honoured with the emperor's entire confidence, took a considerable part, throughout this entire period, in the affairs of the East, and of Syria in particular. And we do not see what objection there is, from a historical point of view, to the hypothesis of Gerlach, who thinks that, whilst Varus was the political and military governor of Syria (from 748), Quirinius administered its financial affairs, and that it was in the capacity of quaestor that he presided over the census which took place among the Jews at this time. Josephus (Antiq. 16.9. 1, 2, and Bell. Jud. 1.27. 2) designates these two magistrates, the praeses and the quaestor, by the titles of ἡγεμόνες and τῆς Συρίας ἐπιστατοῦντες. There is nothing, then, to hinder our giving a somewhat more general meaning to the verb ἡγεμονεύειν, or supposing, we may add, that Luke attributed to Quirinius as governor a function which he accomplished as quaestor. In this case, Quirinius would have already presided over a first enumeration under Herod in 749, before directing the better known census which took place in 759 U.C., and which provoked the revolt of Judas the Galilean.

Those who are not satisfied with any of these attempts at explanation admit an error in Luke, but not all in the same sense. Meyer thinks that ἡγεμονεύειν in Luke's text must keep its ordinary meaning, but that Luke, in employing this term here, confounded the later enumeration of the year 6 with that over which this person presided ten years earlier in the capacity of imperial commissioner. Schleiermacher and Bleek admit a greater error: Luke must have confounded a simple sacerdotal census, which took place in the latter part of Herod's reign, with the famous enumeration of the year 6. Strauss and Keim go further still. In their view, the enumeration of Luke 2:1-2 is a pure invention of Luke's, either to account for the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem, as required by popular prejudice (Strauss), or to establish a significant parallel between the birth of Jesus and the complete subjection of the people (Keim, p. 399). But the text of Luke is of a too strictly historical and prosaic character to furnish the least support to Keim's opinion. That of Strauss might apply to a Gospel like Matthew, which lays great stress on the connection between the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem and Messianic prophecy; but it in no way applies to Luke's Gospel, which does not contain the slightest allusion to the prophecy. Schleiermacher's explanation is a pure conjecture, and one which borders on absurdity. That of Meyer, which in substance is very nearly the opinion of Gerlach, would certainly be the most probable of all these opinions. Only there are two facts which hardly allow of our imputing to Luke a confusion of facts in this place. The first is, that, according to Acts 5:37, he was well acquainted with the later enumeration which occasioned the revolt of Judas the Galilean, and which he calls, in an absolute way, the enumeration. Luke could not be ignorant that this revolt took place on the occasion of the definitive annexation of Judea to the empire, and consequently at some distance of time after the death of Herod. Now, in our text, he places the enumeration of which he is speaking in the reign of Herod! The second fact is the perfect knowledge Luke had, according to Luke 23:6-9, of the subsequent political separation between Judea and Galilee. Now, the registration of a Galilean in Judea supposes that the unity of the Israelitish monarchy was still in existence. In the face of these two plain facts, it is not easy to admit that there was any confusion on his part.

May we be permitted, after so many opinions have been broached, to propose a new one? We have seen that the census which was carried out by Quirinius in 759 U.C., ten years after the birth of Jesus, made a deep impression upon all the people, convincing them of their complete political servitude. This census is called the enumeration without any qualification, therefore (Acts 5:37); but it might also be designated the first enumeration, inasmuch as it was the first census executed by pagan authority; and it would be in this somewhat technical sense that the expression ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη would here have to be taken. We should accentuate αυτη (as has been already proposed) αὐτή, which presents no critical difficulty, since the ancient MSS. have no accents, and understand the second verse thus: As to the census itself called the first, it took place under the government of Quirinius. Luke would break off to remark that, prior to the well-known enumeration which took place under Quirinius, and which history had taken account of under the name of the first, there had really been another, generally lost sight of, which was the very one here in question; and thus that it was not unadvisedly that he spoke of a census anterior to the first. In this way, 1 st, the intention of this parenthesis is clear; 2 d, the asyndeton between Luke 2:1-2 is explained quite in a natural way; and 3 d, the omission of the article ἡ between ἀπογραφή and πρώτη, which has the effect of making ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη a sort of proper name (like ἡ ἐπιστολὴ πρώτη, δευτέρα), is completely justified.

Vers. 3-7. The terms οἶκος and πατριά, house and family (Luke 2:4), have not an invariable meaning in the LXX. According to the etymology and the context, the former appears to have here the wider meaning, and to denote the entire connections of David, comprising his brethren and their direct descendants.

On this journey of Mary, see p. 123. The complement with Mary appears to us to depend, not on the verb ἀπογράψασθαι, to be enrolled, as Meyer, Bleek, etc., decide, but on the entire phrase ἀνέβη ἀπογράφασθαι, he went up to be enrolled, and more especially on he went up. For, as Wieseler observes, the important point for the context is, that she went up, not that she was enrolled. And the words in apposition, being great with child, connect themselves much better with the idea of going up than with that of being enrolled.

There is great delicacy in the received reading, which has also the best support critically, his espoused wife. The substantive indicates the character in which Mary made the journey; the participle recalls the real state of things. The Alex., not having perceived this shade of thought, have wrongly omitted γυναικί.

From the last proposition of Luke 2:7, in which φάτνη, a manger, seems opposed to κατάλυμα, an inn, some interpreters have inferred that the former of these two words should here have a wider sense, and signify a stable. But this meaning is unexampled. We have merely to supply a thought: “in the manger, because they were lodging in the stable, seeing that...” The article τῇ designates the manger as that belonging to the stable. The Alex., therefore, have wrongly omitted it.

Did this stable form part of the hostelry? or was it, as all the apocryphal writings and Justin allege, a cave near the city? In the time of Origen, a grotto was shown where the birth of Jesus took place. It was on this place that Helena, the mother of Constantine built a church; and it is probable that the Church Mariae de Praesepio is erected on the same site. The text of Luke would not be altogether incompatible with this idea. But probably it is only a supposition, resulting on the one hand from the common custom in the East of using caves for stables, and on the other from a mistaken application to the Messiah of Isaiah 33:16, “ He shall dwell in a lofty cave,” quoted by Justin.

The expression first-born naturally implies that the writer believed Mary had other children afterwards, otherwise there would be no just ground for the use of this term. It may be said that Luke employs it with a view to the account of the presentation of Jesus in the temple as a first-born son (Luke 2:22 et seq.). But this connection is out of the question in Matthew 1:25.

This expression proves that the composition of the narrative dates from a time posterior to the birth of the brothers and sisters of Jesus.

Thus was accomplished, in the obscurity of a stable, the fact which was to change the face of the world; and Mary's words (Luke 1:51), “ He hath put down the mighty, and exalted the lowly,” were still further verified. “ The weakness of God is stronger than men,” says St. Paul; this principle prevails throughout all this history, and constitutes its peculiar character.