3. In evidence of these feelings, we have the account of Josephus of the consequences of
the taxation of Cyrenius (Ant. xviii. 1. 1. Comp. Acts v. 37).
But if it be impossible rationally to account for any legendary origin of the narrative of
Joseph and Mary's journey to Bethlehem, the historical grounds, on which its accuracy
has been impugned, are equally insufficient. They resolve themselves into this: that
(beyond the Gospel- narrative) we have no solid evidence that Cyrenius was at that time
occupying the needful official position in the East, to order such a registration for Herod
to carry out. But even this feeble contention is by no means historically unassailable.4 At
any rate, there are two facts, which render any historical mistake by St. Luke on this point
extremely difficult to believe. First, he was evidently aware of a Census under Cyrenius,
ten years later;5 secondly, whatever rendering of St. Luke ii. 2 may be adopted, it will at
least be admitted, that the intercalated sentence about Cyrenius was not necessary for the
narrative, and that the writer must have intended thereby emphatically to mark a certain
event. But an author would not be likely to call special attention to a fact, of which he had
only indistinct knowledge; rather, if it must be mentioned, would he do so in the most
indefinite terms. This presumption in favour of St. Luke's statement is strengthened by
the consideration, that such an event as the taxing of Judæa must have been so easily
ascertainable by him.
4. The arguments on what may be called the orthodox side have, from different points of
view, been so often and well stated - latterly by Wieseler, Huschke, Zumpt, and
Steinmeyer - and on the other side almost ad nauseam by negative critics of every school,
that it seems unnecessary to go again over them. The reader will find the whole subject
stated by Canon Cook , whose views we substantially adopt, in the 'Speaker's
Commentary' (N.T. i. pp. 326-329). The reasoning of Mommsen (Res gestae D. Aug. pp.
175, 176) does not seem to me to affect the view taken in the text.
5. Comp. Acts v. 37.
We are, however, not left to the presumptive reasoning just set forth. That the Emperor
Augustus made registers of the Roman Empire, and of subject and tributary states, is now
generally admitted. This registration - for the purpose of future taxation - would also
embrace Palestine. Even if no actual order to that effect had been issued during the
lifetime of Herod, we can understand that he would deem it most expedient, both on
account of his relations to the Emperor, and in view of the probable excitement which a
heathen Census would cause in Palestine, to take steps for making a registration, and that
rather according to the Jewish than the Roman manner. This Census, then, arranged by
Augustus, and taken by Herod in his own manner, was, according to St. Luke, 'first
[really] carried out when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria,' some years after Herod's
death and when Judæa had become a Roman province. 6
6. For the textual explanation we again refer to Canon Cook , only we would mark, with
Steinmeyer, that the meaning of the expression εγενετο , in St. Luke ii. 2, is determined
by the similar use of it in Acts xi. 28, where what was predicted is said to have actually
taken place ( εγενετο ) at the time of Claudius Cæsar.
We are now prepared to follow the course of the Gospel-narrative. In consequence of 'the
decree of Cæsar Augustus,' Herod directed a general registration to be made after the