Commentari biblici

CHAPTER 2

Luke 2:3. ἰδίαν] Lachm. Tisch. have ἑαυτοῦ, following B D L א** Eus. An interpretation, which is further found completely in D (ἑαυτοῦ πατρίδα). א* has ἑαυτῶν.

Luke 2:5. μεμνηστ. See on Luke 1:27.

γυναικί] is wanting in B C* (F) D L Ξ א, min. vss. Fathers. Deleted by Lachm., and now also again by Tisch. An addition; ἐμνηστευμένῃ was objectionable, hence γυναικί was added, and in part ἐμνηστευμ. was even deleted (Luke 2 :Verc. Colb.). There was less probability that offence might be taken after Matthew 1:24 at γυναικί. Cyril of Jerusalem expresses himself too obscurely in this respect.

Luke 2:7. τῇ φάτνῃ] τῇ is wanting in preponderating witnesses. It is deleted by Lachm. Tisch. The article was added here and at Luke 2:12, in order to designate the definite manger, i.e. the well-known manger of the Saviour.

Luke 2:12. κείμενον] B L P S Ξ א** min. Syr. utr. Vulg. codd. It. Eus. Arnob. and Tisch. have καὶ κείμ.; καί was easily inserted to connect the two participles.

Luke 2:14. εὐδοκία] A B* D א, Goth. Sax. Vulg. It., Fathers, have εὐδοκίας. So Lachm. and Tisch. Recommended by Beza, Mill, Bengel, and others. There is considerable evidence on both sides, but it preponderates in favour of the genitive. Now, as the unfamiliar expression ἄνθρωποι εὐδοκίας is not to be put down to the account of the transcribers, but, on the contrary, these, not apprehending the symmetry of the passage, had after the analogy of δόξα and εἰρήνη sufficient inducement to put instead of εὐδοκίας the nominative likewise, εὐδοκίας is to be preferred.

Luke 2:15. καί οἱ ἄνθρωποι] is wanting in B L Ξ א, min. Syr. Perss. Ar. p. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Vulg. It. Eus. Aug. Bracketed by Lachm. Deleted by Tisch. But the homoeoteleuton (ἄγγελοι … ἄνθρωποι) the more easily gave occasion to the omission, as the words are superfluous and there was no motive for their addition.

Luke 2:17. διεγνώρισαν] Lachm. Tisch. have ἑγνώρισαν, following B D L Ξ א, min. Eus. But the syllable ΔΙ after δέ was more easily passed over than added, especially as the simple form was present in Luke 2:15.

Luke 2:20. Instead of ὑπέστρεψαν, Elz. has ἐπέστρεψαν; and at Luke 2:21, instead of αὐτόν: τὸ παιδίον, in opposition to preponderant evidence.

Luke 2:33. Ἰωσὴφ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ] B D L א, min. vss. (also Vulg.) Or. and several Fathers have ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ κ. ἡ μήτηρ. So Griesbach and Tisch. (who after μήτηρ retains αὐτοῦ). The mention of the father gave offence, and in this place the name might be introduced instead of it, but not appropriately also at Luke 2:48.

Luke 2:37. ὡς] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἕως, in accordance with A B L Ξ א * min. Copt. Sahid. Ar. p. Vulg. codd. It. Aug. Rightly; the ὠς, frequently used in the case of numbers, intruded itself.

Luke 2:38. αὕτη] on preponderant evidence, and because καὶ αὕτη presented itself mechanically from Luke 2:37, is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch.

ἐν Ἱερουσ.] ἐν is wanting in B Ξ Π א, min. vss. (including Vulg. ms. and codd. It.) and Fathers, and is condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition from misunderstanding.

Luke 2:39. τὴν πόλιν αὑτῶν] Lachm. and Tisch. have πόλιν ἑαυτῶν. In accordance with decisive evidence ἑαυτῶν is to be adopted; but the omission of τήν is only attested by B D *א 1.

Luke 2:40. πνεὑματι] has testimonies against it of such weight, and it can so little conceal its origin from Luke 1:80, that with reason it is condemned by Mill and Griesb., excluded by Lachm. and Tisch.

Luke 2:42. ἀναβάντων] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἀναβαινότων, in accordance with A B K L X Π א, min. Vulg. codd. It. A copyist’s error; the aorist is necessary.

εἰς Ἱεροσ.] is wanting in B D L א, min. vss. Tisch. It betrays itself by the form Ἱεροσόλυμα as an addition of another hand.

Luke 2:43. ἔγνω Ἰωσὴφ κ. ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ] B D L א, min. vss. (including Vulg. and codd. It.) Jerome have ἔγνωσαν οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Comp. also Rinck on Matthew 24:36. I regard οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ as written in the margin from Luke 2:41. Comp. on Luke 2:33. Were it original, and had Ἰωσ. κ. ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ been subsequently put for it, why should not this alteration have been already undertaken before at Luke 2:41 (where only codd. It. have: Joseph et Maria)? and why should ἔγνωσαν (which would have stood originally) not have been left? This plural so naturally suggested itself, even with the words of the Recepta, that some witnesses for the Recepta (Δ, for instance) actually read it.

Luke 2:45. After εὑρόντες Elz. Scholz have αὐτόν (Lachm. in brackets), in opposition to B C* D L א, min. Arm. Aeth. Vulg. codd. It. A current addition.

ζητοῦντες] nearly the same witnesses have ἀναζητοῦντες. So Lachm. and Tisch. From Luke 2:44.

The genuineness of the portion from ch. Luke 1:5 to the end of ch. 2 has been contested by Evanson (The Dissonance of the four generally received Evangelists, etc., Ipswich 1792), J. E. Chr. Schmidt (in Henke’s Magaz. vol. III. p. 473 ff.), Horst (Henke’s Museum, I. 3, p. 446 ff.), C. C. L. Schmidt (in the Repert. f. d. Literat. d. Bibel, I. p. 58 ff.), Jones (Sequel to Ecclesiastical Researches, etc., London 1803), Eichhorn, Einl. I. p. 630 f. Baur reckons the section among the portions which have been introduced into our Gospel by the agency of a reviser (the author of the Acts of the Apostles). See his Markusevang. p. 218 ff. But the genuineness was defended by Ammon (Nova Opusc. p. 32 ff.), Süskind (Symbolae, II. p. 1 ff.), von Schubert (de infantiae J. Ch. historiae a Matth. et Luc. exhibitae authentia atque indole, Gripeswald. 1815), Reuterdahl (Obss. crit. in priora duo ev. Luc. capita, Lond. 1823), Bertholdt, Paulus, Schott, Feilmoser, Credner, Neudecker, Kuinoel, Volkmar, Guericke, and almost all the more recent writers. In opposition to Baur, see also Köstlin, p. 306 ff.

The genuineness is rendered certain by the external testimonies without exception. It is true that the section was wanting in the Gospel of Marcion (see Tertullian, c. Marc. iv. 7); but Marcion mutilated and falsified the Gospel of Luke in accordance with his dogmatic aims, and thus formed his Gospel, which, according to Tertullian, Epiphanius, Origen, and others, began: Ἐν ἔτει πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος ὁ Θεὸς κατῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναοῦμ, πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας, καὶ ἦν διδάσκων ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν (Luke 3:1, Luke 4:31). And the internal character of the section, much as it differs from the preface by its Hebraic colouring in accordance with the sources made use of, contains the same peculiarities of Luke as are apparent in the other portions of the Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles (see Gersdorff, p. 160 ff.; Credner, I. p. 132 ff.), and betrays in the whole peculiar character of the representation documental sources, whose characteristic and in part highly poetic stamp Luke with correct tact has known how to preserve in working them up. We may add, that a reason against the genuineness can as little be derived from Acts 1:1 as a conclusion in its favour can be gathered from Luke 1:3. For there mention of the Gospel is made only as regards its main contents; and the ἄνωθεν at Luke 1:3 would, even if Luke 1:5 to Luke 2:52 were not genuine, find warrant enough in the beginning of the history from the emergence of John and in the genealogy contained in the third chapter.

Luke 2:1. Ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκ.] approximate specification of time in relation to the principal contents of what precedes, the birth of the Baptist.

δόγμα] an ordinance, an edict. Acts 17:7; Theodotion, Daniel 2:13; Dem. 278. 17, 774. 19; Plat. Legg. i. p. 644 D; and the passages in Wetstein.

ἀπογράφεσθαι] that there should be recorded, cannot at all be meant of a mere registration, which Augustus had caused to be made (if also with the design of regulating in future a taxing of the Jews) for a statistical object, possibly with a view to the Breviarium imperii which he wrote with his own hand (in which “opes publicae continebantur; quantum civium sociorumque in armis; quot classes, regna, provinciae, tributa aut vectigalia et necessitates ac largitiones,” Tacitus, Ann. i. 11), as is held by Kuinoel, Olshausen, Ebrard, Wieseler, Ewald, and older expositors, but must, on account of Luke 2:2, be placed on the same footing in respect of its nature with the census Quirinii, and is therefore to be regarded as the direct registration into the tax-lists, belonging to the census proper (ἀποτίμησις, τίμημα) and forming its essential element, as, in fact, ἀπογράφειν, ἀπογράφεσθαι, ἀπογραφή (Acts 5:37) are the standing expressions for the recording of estate, whether in affairs of law-procedure (see Reiske, Ind. Dem. p. 63 f.; Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 136. 13), or in those of taxing (Plato, Legg. vi. p. 754 D; Polyb. x. 17. 10; and see Elsner and Wetstein). On the subject-matter itself, see Huschke, üb. d. Census u. d. Steuerverfass. d. frühern Röm. Kaiserzeit, Berl. 1847.

πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμ.] not: the whole of Palestine (Flacius, Clavis; Paulus, Hug, and others), to which the expression is never limited,[35] not even in Josephus, Antt. viii. 13. 5, but, as the context by παρὰ Καίσαρος Αὐγούστου imperatively requires, the whole Roman empire (orbis terrarum). See the passages in Wetstein, and comp. Dissen, ad Dem, de Cor. p. 215; Maetzner, Lycurg. p. 100. Hence the Roman emperors were called κύριοι τῆς οἰκουμένης (Franz, Corp. Inscr. III. p. 205). Luke narrates a general census of the empire (Huschke); and even the limitation of the meaning merely to a general provincial census (Wieseler) has no foundation at all in the text, any more than the fanciful suggestion of Lange (L. J. II. 1, p. 93), that Mary, who is assumed as the source of information for the history of the infancy, had, “in accordance with the policy of a lofty feminine sentiment,” referred the determination of Herod, to undertake a census in Palestine, back to the Emperor Augustus as its originator, and that Luke, “in his kindly truth,” had not wished to alter the account, and hence had “by way of gentle correction” inserted Luke 2:2. See, in opposition to this, Ebrard, p. 169 f. Comp. also Auberlen, Daniel u. d. Apok. p. 248 f.

[35] Justin, c. Tr. 78, has: ἀπογραφῆς οὔσης ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ τότε πρώτης. But this ἐν τῆ Ἰουδ. manifestly has its reference to πρώτης. Comp. Ap. i. 34, p. 75 E.

Luke 2:1-2. See especially Huschke, üb. den z. Zeit d. Geburt J. Chr. gehalt. Census, Breslau 1840 (Hoeck, Röm. Gesch. Bd. I. Abth. II.); Wieseler, chronol. Synopse, p. 73 ff.; von Gumpach in the Stud. u. Krit. 1852, p. 663 ff., where also the older literature is specified, and in his Kritik und Antikritik, Heidelb. 1853; Zumpt, Commentatt. epigraph. II. p. 73 ff.; Köhler in Herzog’s Encykl. XIII. p. 463 ff.; Aberle in the theol. Quartalschr. 1865, p. 103 ff.; Gerlach, d. Römischen Statthalter in Syr. u. Judäa, 1865, p. 22 ff., 44 ff.; Strauss, die Halben u. d. Ganzen, 1865, p. 70 ff.; Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1865, p. 408 ff.

Luke 2:2. In a critical respect no change is to be made. Lachmann has, indeed, struck out the article before ἀπογρ. (in which Wieseler, and now also Tischendorf agree with him), but the witnesses which omit it are only B D (the latter having ἐγένετο ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη), א (?) 131, Eus.; and how easily might ἡ, which in itself is superfluous (see Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 105 [E. T. 221]; Bremi, ad Lys. Exc. II. p. 436 ff.), be merged in the last letter of αὕτη! If ἡ is not read, αὕτη is the subject, and ἀπογρ. πρ. is the predicate (this became the first ἀπογραφή). Beza, ed. 1, 2, 3, Pfaff, Valckenaer have declared the entire verse to be an interpolated scholion; but this is a violent suggestion opposed to all the evidence. Conjectures are given by Huetius: Κυϊντιλίου; Heumann: Κρονίου (= Saturnini); Valesius: Σατουρνίνου; Michaelis: πρώτη ἐγένετο πρὸ τῆς ἡγεμονεύοντος κ.τ.λ., al.; see Bowyer, Conject. I. p. 117 ff.

The observation contained in Luke 2:2, which, moreover, is not to be put in a parenthesis, is intended to tell the reader that this census was the first of those held under the presidency of Quirinius, and consequently to guard against confounding it with that which was held about eleven years later (Acts 5:37). The words signify: This census was the first while Quirinius was praeses of Syria.[36] There was known, namely, to the reader a second census of Quirinius (Acts, l.c.); but the one recorded at present was the first, which occurred under the Syrian presidency of this man.[37] It is true that history is at variance with this clear meaning of the words as they stand. For at the time of the birth of Jesus, according to the definite testimony of Tertullian (c. Marc. iv. 19), Q. Sentius Saturninus was governor of Syria; Publius Sulpicius Quirinius did not become so till about ten years later.[38] But this variance does not entitle us to have recourse to explanations inconsistent with linguistic usage or with the text. Explanations of this nature, which must, nevertheless, leave untouched the incorrect statement about the taxation as an imperial census, are (1) that of Herwart (Chronol. 241 f.), Bynaeus, Marck, Er. Schmid, Clericus, Keuchen, Perizonius (de Augustea orbis terrar. descript., Oxon. 1638), Ussher, Petavius, Calovius, Heumann, Storr, Süskind, and others, including Tholuck (Glaubwürdigk. d. evang. Gesch. p. 184), Huschke, Wieseler, who holds that πρώτη ἡγεμ. κ.τ.λ. means: sooner than Quirinius was praeses. Comp. also Bornemann, Schol. p. lxvi., and Ewald (Gesch. Chr. p. 140), who compares the Sanscrit and translates: “this taxation occurred much earlier (superlative) than when Quirinius ruled.” But instead of citing passages in which, as at John 1:15; John 15:18, πρῶτός τινος, according to the real meaning, is sooner than some one (Bernhardy, ad Dionys. Perieg. p. 770, and Eratosth. p. 122; Wesseling, ad Herod. ii. 2, Luke 9:27; Schaefer, ad Dion. Hal. c. v. p. 228; Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 421), proofs ought to have been adduced for such a participial connection as in the passage before us; but certainly not Jeremiah 29:2, where ἐξελθόντος κ.τ.λ. is a genitive absolute, even apart from the fact that the use of ὕστερον there cannot vouch for our πρώτη. In a similarly erroneous manner Wieseler has adduced Soph. Ant. 637 f., 701 f., 703 f. Luke would have known how to express the meaning: sooner than, etc., simply, definitely, and accurately, by πρὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονεύειν κ.τ.λ. (comp. Luke 2:21; Luke 12:5; Acts 23:15), or by πρίν, or πρὶν ἤ.[39] (2) The expedient of Beza, Casaubon (Exercitatt. Antibaron. p. 126 f.), Jos. Scaliger (de emend, temp. 4, p. 417), Grotius, Wernsdorf (de censu, quem Caes. Oct. Aug. fecit, Viteb. 1720), Deyling (Obss. I. ed. 3, p. 242 f.), Nahmmacher (de Augusto ter censum agente, Helmst. 1758), Volborth (de censu Quir., Gott. 1785), Birch (de censu Quir., Havn. 1790), Sanclemente (de vulg. aerae Dionys. emend., Rom. 1793), Ideler (Handb. d. Chronol. II. p. 394), Münter, (Stern d. Weisen, p. 88 ff.), Neander, Hug (Gutacht), and others: that ἡγεμονεύοντ. is here to be taken in a wider meaning, and that Quirinius had held that first ἀπογραφή in Syria as extraordinary commissioner of the emperor, as to which appeal is made, partly in general to the imperial favour which Quirinius enjoyed, partly to Tac. Ann. iii. 48, according to which he was nearly about that time in the East with extraordinary commissions, partly to the analogy of the Gallic census held by Germanicus (Tac. Ann. i. 31), and so forth. This expedient would only be possible, if ἡγεμον. stood by itself in the passage, and not τῆς Συρίας beside it. And if ἡγεμον. were meant proleptically: under the subsequent praeses (Lardner in Bowyer, Conject. I. p. 120; Münter), Luke could hardly have proceeded more awkwardly than by thus omitting the point whereon his being understood depended (it must have been expressed in some such way as Κυρηνίου τοῦ ὕστερον ἡγεμ. τῆς Συρίας). (3) Gerlach thinks that at the time of Christ’s birth Varus, indeed, was ἡγεμών of Syria, but Quirinius was placed by his side as legatus Caesaris proconsulari potestate for the purpose of making war upon the Homonades, and had at that time—consequently likewise as ἡγεμών—undertaken the census, which, however, he brought to no right conclusion, and only carried out subsequently under his second praesidium. But granted that the Tiburtine inscription (see upon that subject Gerlach, p. 25, 39 ff.), which Huschke refers to Agrippa, Zumpt to Saturninus, is rightly referred, with Sanclemente, Nipperdey, Bergmann, and Gerlach, to Quirinius, and that a twofold legatio of the latter to Asia took place: how could Luke with his simple and plain words intend to designate that complicated historical relation and leave the reader to guess it? To the latter Quirinius presented himself only as ordinary and single praeses of Syria. Compare, moreover, what is said afterwards in opposition to von Gumpach. (4) At variance with the text is the expedient of Paulus, who substantially is followed by Gersdorf, Glöckler, Krabbe, Mack (Bericht üb. Strauss, krit. Bearb. d. Leb. J. p. 84 ff.), Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf. II. p. 54, Ebrard, Lange, L. J. II. l, p. 94 (comp. also Tholuck, Glaubwürdigk. p. 184 ff., and Olshausen): that the word is to be accented as αὐτή (ipsa): the first recording itself took place while Quirinius, etc.; the issuing of the edict ensued at the time of the birth of Jesus, but the census itself did not occur till under Quirinius.[40] This is erroneous, as in fact Luke 2:3 relates the very carrying out[41] of the ἀπογράφεσθαι, and this Luke 2:3 ff. must be conceived as following immediately upon the edict. (5) Von Gumpach lays stress on ἐγένετο,[42] whereby he regards Luke as indicating that in Luke 2:1 he has spoken only of the placing on the register, and would not have the same confounded with the actual levying of taxation, which was not carried into execution until under Quirinius. Against this it may be urged that Luke would have known how to express the realization, as contrasted with what was intended, otherwise than by the simple ἐγένετο, or that he would at least have placed this word, and that with a more precise definition (ὌΝΤΩς ΔῈ ἘΓΈΝΕΤΟ, or the like), at the head of the sentence; as well as that he, in order to have the ἈΠΟΓΡΑΦΉ recognised as something different from and later than the mere registration, must have made use of another word, and not again of ἀπογραφή so similar to the ἈΠΟΓΡΆΦΕΣΘΑΙ. (6) Aberle seeks by learned combination to show that even before the death of Herod Quirinius had actually become praeses Syriae, but that as rector juventutis to the emperor’s grandson Caius, he was still temporarily detained in Rome by Augustus,[43] and his governorship remained virtually unknown in the east and west, but is to be assigned to the year 749. But while there is certain attestation that he was rector juventutis to Caius (Tacitus, Ann. iii. 48), in which post he was succeeded by Lollius (see Zumpt, p. 102), there is no evidence at all for the assumption of a contemporary praesidium Syriae, which he must have held nominally (thus somewhat like an episcopus in partibus). And how should this state of things, which had remained unknown and was only noticed by jurists and notaries for the sake of the dating of documents, have become known to Luke in particular, and have been left by him without any explanation, in such a way that from his words we can only understand the praeses Syriae in the primary and usual sense, according to which the praeses resides in his province and administers the same?

It is not to be inferred, moreover, from the ignorance which Luke betrays at Acts 5:36 ff., that the addition πρώτη proceeds not from Luke, but from an older Jewish-Christian writer (Köstlin, p. 245); for that ignorance concerned not the census of Quirinius, but the time of the insurrection of Theudas.

ἩΓΕΜΟΝ.] the general word for the post of a chief, here shown by the context (Τῆς ΣΥΡΊΑς) to be used of the provincial chief, praeses (proconsul). Comp. Joseph. Antt. xviii. 4. 2 : Συρίας τὴν ἡγεμονίαν ἔχων. In Luke 3:1, used of the Procurator.

ΚΥΡΗΝΊΟΥ] P. Sulpicius Quirinius previously in the year 742 consul, praeses of Syria in the years 6–11 after Christ, died in Rome in the year 21 after Christ. See Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 18 f.; Gerlach, l.c. His name is usually written Quirinus; by others (so Wetstein, Valckenaer, Ewald, Gerlach, al.), Quirinius. In the case of the Roman writers (especially Florus, iv. 12. 41; Tacitus, Ann. ii. 30, iii. 22. 48) the manuscripts vary; from a coin and inscription, which have Quirinus, nothing can be decided in view of the great doubt as to their genuineness.[44] But it is certain that among the Greeks (Strabo, xii. 6, p. 569; Josephus, Justin Martyr) the name is written with the termination ΙΟΣ; and, as this manner of writing is at all events decidedly correct in our passage (C D E F, etc., including א, likewise Eusebius, Chrysostom, etc.), whereas among the codices only B reads ΚΥΡΕΊΝΟΥ (hence Lachmann reads ΚΥΡΊΝΟΥ), the form Quirinius, which easily became confounded with the familiar Roman word Quirinus (= Quirinalis), is to be preferred. The confusion occurred the more easily, as Quirinus, Κυρῖνος (Plutarch), or Κυρίνος (Leon. Philippians 1) was also a Roman name. At all events, Luke himself had in his mind the name Quirinius.

[36] Not: it took place first, when,—came to be carried out not earlier than when Quirinius, etc. Lichtenstein, p. 81 f., comes ultimately to this meaning. How can this be expressed by πρώτη? Instead of πρώτη Luke must have written precisely the opposite, namely, ὕστερον, or ὕστερον δὴ ἐγένετο κ.τ.λ. Hofmann is similarly mistaken, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 120 f.

[37] Quite definitely Justin also says, in agreement with Luke, that Christ was born ἐπὶ Κυρηνίου (Apol. i. 46), and even that His birth was to be seen ἐκ τῶν ἀπογραφῶν τῶν γενομένεν ἐπὶ Κυρηνίου τοῦ ὑμετέρου ἐν Ἰουδαίᾳ πρώτου γενομένου ἐπιτρόπου, Apol. i. 34; so that he in another erroneous manner (see Credner, Beitr. I. p. 230) makes the man to be Roman procurator in Judaea. This was Coponius, Joseph. Bell. ii. 8. 1.

[38] Between these two Quintilius Varus had been invested with this dignity, Joseph. Antt. xvii. 5. 2. But the position that Quirinius had not been already governor of Syria at an earlier date (according to Zumpt, from 4 to 1 before Christ) must be adhered to, according to all the accounts given of him by Josephus (especially Antt. xviii. 1. 1). Comp. Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 140 f. The words ITERVM. SYRIAM. of the Tiburtine inscription are of too uncertain interpretation, if the inscription applies to Quirinius, precisely to prove his twofold praesidium Syriae, since we know neither what stood after Syriam, etc., nor whether iterum is to be referred forward or backward. Comp. Strauss, p. 75. What still remains of the whole damaged inscription runs thus (according to Mommsen in Bergmann):—

[39] “Profecto mirandum est, homines eruditissimos in ejusmodi interpretationum ludibria a praejudicatis opinionibus perductos labi,” Valckenaer, p. 68.

[40] Glöckler, Krabbe, Mack, and Tholuck, however, do not hold the accentuation αὐτή requisite, and Köhler rejects it.

[41] Ebrard, p. 177, wishes to set aside this difficulty by the explanation that while an ἀπογράφεσθαι in the sense of a registration already occurred at the time of the birth of Jesus, Luke availed himself of the double meaning of ἀπογραφή, which also signifies the actual census, “in an easy and unrestrained manner” to set forth how the work begun in the registration was completed in the taxation of Quirinius. This is a makeshift, which imputes to Luke a very enigmatical and awkward use of the word ἀπογραφή.

[42] So also does Köhler, who besides, with Hofmann and Ebrard, lays stress on the fact that the passage runs not as ἡ πρώτη, but simply πρώτη. Luke is thus made to say: this taxation was completed as the first taxation, etc.; it was, namely, begun doubtless, but was soon stopped and was only carried out under Quirinius. Comp. already Calvin and Gerlach above. Nothing of this appears in the text, and the article with πρώτη would make no difference at all, since, as is well known, the ordinal numbers may stand with or without an article. (Poppo, ad Thucyd. ii. 70. 5, iv. 90. 3, Goth.).

[43] Varus having in the meanwhile continued still to exercise the powers of governor. As well according to Gerlach as according to Aberle, Varus is held to have already, at the time of Christ’s birth, filled the office of governor in Syria, which, moreover, Norisius, Cenotaph. Pis. II. p. 82 f., and others maintained. But this is at variance with Tertullian, l.c., comp. c. 7, where it can only he regarded as a very arbitrary assumption that Saturninus is no longer meant as governor.

[44] See Gerlach, p. 37, who cites another inscription, which actually reads Quirinio, from Marini, Act. II. 782.

GEM. QVA. REDACTA. POT

AVGVSTI. POPVLIQVE. ROMANI. SENATV

svpplicationes. binas. ob. res. prosp

ipsi. ornamenta. trivmph

pro. consvl. asiam. provinciamop

divi. avgvsti. itervm. syriam. et. ph

See Bergmann, de inscript. Latina ad P. Sulp. Quir. Cos. a 742 ut videtur refer. 1851.

REMARK.

The statement of Luke, so far as it affirms that at the time of the birth of Christ an imperial census was taken, and that it was the first that was provincially carried out by the Syrian praeses Quirinius, is manifestly incorrect. For (1) the praesidium of Quirinius is placed about ten years too early; and (2) an imperial census, if such an one should have been held at all at the time of the birth of Jesus (which, however, cannot from other sources be proved, for the passages of Christian authors, Cassiodorus, var. iii. 52, Suidas, s.v. ἀπογραφή, plainly depend on the narrative of Luke, as also does the chronologically erroneous statement of Isidor. Orig. v. 36. 4), cannot have affected Palestine at all,[45] since it had not yet become a Roman province, which did not happen till 759. And, indeed, the ordaining of so abnormal and disturbing a measure in reference to Palestine—a measure, which assuredly would not be carried through without tumultuary resistance—would have been so uncommonly important for Jewish history, that Josephus would certainly not have passed it over in absolute silence (Antt. xvii. 1. 1 does not bear on it); especially as it was not the rex socius himself, Herod, but the Roman governor, who was, according to Luke (in opposition to Wieseler), the authority conducting it. But (3) the holding withal of a general census of the empire under Augustus is historically altogether unvouched for; it is a matter of history (see the Monum. Ancyran. in Wolf, ed. Sueton. II. p. 369 ff.; comp. Sueton. Aug. 27) that Augustus thrice, in 726, 746, and 767, held a census populi, i.e. a census of the Roman citizens, but not also of the whole provinces of the empire (see, in opposition to Huschke, Wieseler, p. 84 ff.). Should we, on the other hand, assume, with Wieseler, that the census had only the provinces in view and had been taken up in the different provinces in different years, and with the utmost indulgence to provincial peculiarities,—the object aimed at being the settling of an uniform system of taxation (comp. Savigny in the Zeitschr. für geschichtl. Rechtswiss. VI. p. 350),—the text of Luke would stand opposed to it. For, according to that text, (a) the whole Roman empire is subjected to a census; (b) this quite universal census is ordained at once in the edict, which, on Wieseler’s hypothesis of the gradual and indulgent mode of its execution by the politic Augustus, would have been imprudent; and (c) it is represented as an actual tax-census, as was the well-known (according to Luke, second) census Quirinii, in which case the alleged indulgence is imported.

[45] See Mommsen in Bergm. p. iv. ff.

Nevertheless, criticism pronounces judgment on itself, when it designates the whole account as to the census as an invention of legend (Strauss; comp. Kern, Urspr. des Evang. p. 113 ff.; Weisse, I. p. 236), or even of Luke (B. Bauer), which is made in order to bring Mary with Joseph to Bethlehem. Comp. the frivolous opinion of Eichthal, II. p. 184 f. What a strange and disproportionate machinery for this purpose! No; something of the nature of a census, and that by command of the emperor, must have taken place in the Roman empire[46]—a registration, as regards which it is quite an open question whether it was taken with or without a design to the future regulation of taxation, or merely had for its aim the levying of statistics. The consolidating aims of the government of Augustus, and, in reference to Palestine, the dependence of the vassal-king Herod, take away from it all historical improbability, even apart from the analogous measure—that had already preceded it—of the survey of the whole Roman empire instituted by Augustus (Frontinus in the Auct. rei agrar., ed. Goes. p. 109; Aethicus Ister, Cosmogr., ed Gronov. p. 26). Further, as Quirinius was not at that time praeses, he can only have acted in this statistical measure as extraordinary commissioner, which is the less improbable, because apart from this he was then in the East by order of the emperor (see above), and because the politic Augustus very naturally as to that business put more confidence in an approved impartial commissioner than in the reges socii themselves or in the interested proconsuls. And this action of Quirinius enables us to understand how tradition, in the gradual obscuring and mixing up of its recollections, should have made him praeses Syriae at that time, since he was so subsequently, and how the registration in question was made into a census, because subsequently he actually as Syrian governor[47] had charge of a census; and from this mixing up of times and matters resulted at the same time the designation of the ἀπογραφή as πρώτη, which occurred ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου. Thus Luke has narrated what actually happened in the erroneous form which it received from the tradition. But if we conceive of the ἀπογραφή as merely a revision of the genealogical family registers (Schleiermaeher, Olshausen, ed. 1, Bleek), which probably was ordained only by the spiritual authorities, and perhaps had reference merely to the family of David, it is no longer easy to see how Luke, or the source from which he drew, could make out of it something thoroughly and specifically different. According to Schweizer in the theol. Jahrb. 1847, p. 1 ff., Luke has really in the passage before us, at variance with Luke 3:1, made Jesus be born in the year of the taxing of Quirinius, Acts 5:37, and thus long after the death of Herod,—in spite of his own distinct statement, Luke 1:5!

The hypotheses, moreover, that Luke intended by the enrolment of Jesus (?) in the register of the Empire to point to the universal destination of the Redeemer (Wieseler; comp. Erasmus, Bengel, and already Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus), or to the coincidence of the birth of the Messiah and the redemption of Israel with the political bondage of the people (Ebrard), or to the manner in which Jesus in His mother’s womb was most surprisingly dealt with as a Roman subject (Hofmann), are purely arbitrary creations of that subjectivity, which has the utmost delight in discovering a mystical reference behind every simple historical statement.

[46] Possibly of the population, of the civil and military resources, of the finances, etc., as, according to Tacitus, Ann. i. 11, the Breviarium totius imperii (Sueton. Octav. 28, 101) of Augustus contained columns of that kind. See above on ver. 1.

[47] Aberle, indeed, calls this in question, holding that Quirinius was at the later census merely a simple Legatus Caesaris. Although Josephus does not expressly name him ἡγεμών, he is still, in Antt. xviii. 1. 1, sufficiently indicated as such. Comp. Hilgenfeld, p. 413 ff. Apart from this, the expression ἡγεμονεύοντος in the passage before us is only an erroneously anticipating reflex of that, which subsequently Quirinius was in fact, and notoriously, as respects his real census attended by consequences so grave.

Luke 2:3 ff. Πάντες] in the Jewish land, for which Luke 2:2 has prepared, and see Luke 2:4. Obviously only all those are meant, who did not dwell in their ἰδία πόλις; ἕκαστος is a distributive apposition (Ameis on Homer, Od. x. 397).

εἰς τ. ἰδίαν πόλιν] the more precise definition is furnished by Luke 2:4. This statement, too, does not suit a census proper; for to this every one was required to subject himself at his dwelling place, or at the place where he had his forum originis (see Huschke, p. 116 ff.), whereas in our passage the Jewish principle of tribe is the basis. And if the matter were not a census, but a mere registration (see above), there was no reason for departing from the time-hallowed division of the people, or for not having the matter carried out in Jewish form. The actual historical state of the case shines here through the traditional dress of a census.

πόλιν Δαυ.] The city where David was born, 1 Samuel 17:11.

Βεθλεέμ] see on Matthew 2:1.

ἐξ οἴκου κ. πατριᾶς Δαυ.] The tribes proceeding from the sons of Jacob were called φυλαί (מַטּו̇ת); the branches proceeding from the sons of these patriarchs, πατριαί (מִשְׁפְּהו̇ת); the single families of such a tribal branch, οἶκοι (בֵּיח אָבו̇ח). See Kypke, I. p. 213; Winer, Realwörterb. s.v. Stämme; Gesenius, Thes. I. p. 193, III. p. 1463. Joseph was thus of the family descending from David, and belonged to the same branch of the tribe to which David bad belonged. A circumstantial designation of this important relationship. As to πατριά, moreover, see on Ephesians 3:15.

σὺν Μαριάμ] does not belong to ἀνέβη (Paulus, Hofmann, Ebrard), but to ἀπογράψ. beside which it stands: in order to have himself enrolled with Mary, etc. But that Mary had of necessity to share the journey with him (which was not requisite in the case of a census, when only the names of the women and children had to be specified, Dion. Hal. iv. 14; see Strauss, I. p. 235, and Huschke, p. 121, in opposition to Tholuck, p. 191) is the less to be supposed, as in the main the form of the execution of the ἀπογραφή was the Jewish one, Luke 2:3. Nevertheless, wives (in this case Mary as one betrothed, who according to Jewish law was placed on the same footing as the wife) had to be likewise entered in the register, which must have been a matter of Roman enactment, but for which it was not necessary that they should come personally with their husbands to the spot. We have consequently to abide by the view that Mary undertook the journey with her husband voluntarily, according to her own and Joseph’s wish, in order to remain under the protection of her betrothed (not exactly on account of the troublous times,—an idea which Ebrard imports). There are various arbitrary hypotheses, such as: that she travelled with him on account of the poll-tax (Huschke); that she wished still as a maiden to represent her father’s house, and longed after Bethlehem in the theocratic feeling of maternity (Lange); that the command for the taxing extended also to the children and contained a definite point of time, just about which Mary expected her delivery (von Gumpach). And the hypothesis that Mary was an heiress, who had an estate in Bethlehem (Michaelis, Kuinoel, Olshausen; with hesitation Bleek and Köhler), is utterly unfounded as regards Luke in particular, since he has not the smallest trace of any earlier connection with Bethlehem and makes Mary in her travail not find even friendly lodging there.

τῇ ἐμνηστ. αὐτῷ] Thus, according to Luke, she was still only his betrothed (Luke 1:27; Matthew 1:18), and the marriage was not yet completed. At variance with Matthew 1:24. A different form assumed by the tradition of the virgin birth. Evasive suggestions are resorted to by Beza, Grotius, and others, including Schegg and Bisping (that Luke expresses himself thus, because Joseph had only conducted himself as one betrothed towards Mary).

οὔσῃ ἐγκύῳ] not: because she was pregnant (von Gumpach), but: who was pregnant (Acts 24:24; Romans 1:16, and frequently). The observation forms the transition to what follows.

REMARK.

From Mary’s sharing in the journey we are not to conclude that she likewise was of the family of David (Grotius, Kuinoel, and others). She journeyed voluntarily with Joseph as his future wife, and Joseph journeyed as a member of the house of David. If Luke had had in his mind the thought that Mary shared the journey as a descendant of David, he must have written, and that at the end of Luke 2:5, διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτους κ.τ.λ. But comp. on Luke 1:36, and on Matthew 1:17, Remark 2.

Luke 2:6 f. Ἐπλήσθησαν αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ τεκεῖν αὐτήν] comp. Luke 1:57. The supposition (see as early as Protevang. Jac. 17) that Mary was surprised by the pains of labour on the way, is set aside by the ἐν τῷ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἐκεῖ. And probably she had hoped to be able to finish the journey before her delivery. “Non videtur scisse, se vi prophetiae (Micah 5:2) debere Bethlehemi parere, sed providentia coelestis omnia gubernavit, ut ita fieret,” Bengel.

That Mary was delivered without pain and injury is proved by Fathers and expositors, such as even Maldonatus and Estius, from the fact that she herself swaddled the child and laid it in the manger!

τὸν πρωτότοκον] See on Matthew 1:25. The evasive suggestion resorted to, that this word is used without reference to later born children, appears the more groundless in view of the agreement of Matthew and Luke.

ἐσπαργάν.] She swaddled him; frequently used in Greek writers.

ἐν φάτνῃ] without the article (see the critical remarks): she deposited him in a manger. Many, including Paulus and Kuinoel, have, contrary to linguistic usage, made of it a stable.[48] See, on the other hand, Gersdorf, p. 221; Bornemann, Schol. p. 18.

ἐν τῷ καταλύματι] in the inn (Luke 10:34), where they lodged—probably on account of the number of strangers who were present on the same occasion. If we should wish to understand it as: the house of a friendly host (for the signification of καταλύμα is generally a place of shelter, lodging, comp. Luke 22:11), it would remain improbable that a friendly host, even with ever so great restriction of room, should not have made a chamber in the house available for such an exigency. The text suggests nothing indicative of an inhospitable treatment (Calvin).

[48] That a stable (in opposition to Ebrard) was the place of the birth, follows from ἐν φάτνῃ, διότι κ.τ.λ. It is possible that the stable was a rock-cave, which an old legend (Justin, c. Tryph. 78; Orig. c. Cels. i. 51; Protevang. Jac. 18) designates as the place of the birth, not without suspicion, however, by reason of its appeal to Isaiah 33:16, LXX. Moreover, that tradition transfers the cave expressly only to the neighbourhood of the little town, and states withal of Joseph: οὐκ εἶχεν ἐν τῇ κώμῃ ἐκείνῃ ποῦ καταλῦσαι, Justin, l.c. Over this grotto designated by the legend Helena built the church Mariae de praesepio. Comp. also Robinson, Pal. 11. p. 284 ff.; Ritter, Erdk. XVI. p. 292 ff.

Luke 2:8 f. Ποιμένες] not οἱ ποιμένες.

ἀγραυλοῦντες] staying out in the open fields; Plut. Numbers 4; Parthen. Erot. xxix. 1, and the ποιμένες ἄγραυλοι already in Homer, Il. xviii. 162.

φυλάσσ. φυλακάς] often conjoined also among the Greek writers; Plat. Phaedr. p. 240 E; Xen. Anab. ii. 6. 10, and the passages in Kypke. Comp. שָׁמַו מִשְׁמָרו̇ח, Numbers 1:53, al. The plural applies to the different watch-stations.

τῆς νυκτός] not belonging to φυλακάς, but: by night, definition of time for ἀγραυλ. and φυλάσσ.

According to this statement, Jesus cannot have been born in December, in the middle of the rainy season (Robinson, Pal. II. p. 505 f.), as has been since the fourth century supposed with a probable joining on of the festival to the Natales solis invicti (see Gieseler, Kirchengesch. I. 2, p. 287 f. ed. 4). Just as little can He have been born on the sixth day of January, which in the East was even earlier fixed as the festival of the birth and baptism (still other times fixed as the day of birth may be seen in Clement Al. Strom. I. p. 339 f. Sylb.). According to the Rabbins, the driving forth of the flocks took place in March, the bringing in of them in November (see Lightfoot); and if this is established at least as the usual course, it certainly is not in favour of the hypothesis (Wieseler) that Jesus was born in February (750), and necessitates precarious accessory assumptions.

ἐπέστη] Comp. Luke 24:4; Acts 12:7; Acts 17:5. In the classical writers it is used also of theophanies, of appearances in dreams, and the like, frequently since Homer (Il. xxiii. 106, x. 496), denoting their sudden emergence, which nevertheless is implied not in the word in itself, but in the text.

δόξα κυρίου], בְּבוֹד יְהֹוָה radiance by which God is surrounded. Comp. Ewald, ad Apoc. p. 311. God’s glorious radiance (comp. Acts 7:2) had streamed down with the angel. “In omni humiliatione Christi per deeoram quandam protestationem cautum est gloriae ejus divinae,” Bengel.

Luke 2:10 ff. Παντὶ τῷ λαῷ] to the whole (Israelitish) people.

ἐτέχθη ὑμῖν] that (that, namely) there was born to you this day, etc. The ὑμῖν, in reference to the shepherds, is individualizing.

σωτὴρ κ.τ.λ.] a deliverer—and now comes His special more precise definition: who is Messiah, Lord! Χριστὸς κύριος is not to be taken together, as it never occurs thus in the N. T.

ἐν πόλ. Δαυ.] belonging to ἐτέχθη. “Haec periphrasis remittit pastores ad prophetiam, quae turn implebatur,” Bengel. Micah 5:2.

τὸ σημεῖον] the appointed sign of recognition.[49]

βρέφος] not: the child (Luther), but: a child. The word denotes either the still unborn child (as Luke 1:41; Hom. Il. xxii. 266), or, as in this case (comp. Luke 18:15; Acts 7:19; 1 Peter 2:2; also as a strong expression of the thought, 2 Timothy 3:15) and very often in the classical writers, the newborn child.

ἐσπαργ.] adjectival: a swaddled child, Luke 2:7.

[49] According to the notice σήμερον, and in view of the smallness of Bethlehem, the sign specified by κείμενον ἐν φάτνῃ was sufficiently certain at once to guide inquiry to the child in the village. Olshausen, but not the text, adds to this the secret impulse of the Spirit, which led the shepherds to the right place.

Luke 2:13 f. Πλῆθος στρ. οὐρ.] a multitude, of the heavenly host (צְכָא הַשָּׁמַיִם), a multitude of angels. The (satellite-) host of the angels surrounds God’s throne, 1 Kings 22:19; 2 Chronicles 18:18; Psalm 103:21; Psalm 148:2; Matthew 26:53; Revelation 19:14, al. On γίνεσθαι σύν τινι, to be associated with any one, comp. Xen. Cyr. v. 3. 8. On στρατιά, comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 246 E: στρατιὰ θεῶν τε καὶ δαιμόνων.

δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις κ.τ.λ. According to the reading εὐδοκίας (see the critical remarks, and Nösselt, Exercitatt. p. 171 ff.): Glory (is, comp. 1 Peter 4:11) in the heaven to God, and on earth salvation among men who are well-pleasing! The angels declare to the praise of God (Luke 2:13) that on account of the birth of the Messiah God is glorified in heaven (by the angels), and that on the earth there is now salvation among men, to whom in and with the new-born child has been imparted God’s good pleasure.[50] They thus contemplate the Messiah’s work as having already set in with His birth, and celebrate it in a twofold manner in reference to heaven and earth (comp. Isaiah 6:3). Their exclamation is not a wish, as it is usually rendered by supplying ἔστω or εἴη, but far stronger,—a triumphant affirmation of the existing blessed state of things. The ἐν ἀνθρώπ. εὐδοκίας (genitive of quality, see Winer, p. 211 f. [E. T. 296 f.]) adds to the scene of the εἰρήνη the subjects, among whom it prevails (comp. Plat. Symp. p. 197 C); these, namely, are those who believe in the Messiah, designated in reference to God whose grace they possess, as men who are well-pleasing (to Him). Comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 587: καὶ εὐδοκήσει κύριος ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀγαπητοῖς αὐτοῦ ἕως αἰώνων. Observe, moreover, the correlation which exists (1) between δόξα and εἰρήνη; (2) between ἐν ὑψίστοις and ἐπὶ γῆς; and (3) between Θεῷ and ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας. By ἐν ὑψίστοις (in regions, which are the highest of all, Luke 19:38) the angels declare what takes place in the highest heaven, whence they have just come down. Comp. Matthew 21:9; Wis 9:17; Sir 43:9; Job 16:19; Hebrews 1:3.

By εἰρήνη they mean not only peace (usually understood of the peace of reconciliation), but the entire salvation, of which the new-born child is the bearer; comp. Luke 1:79.

With the Recepta εὐδοκία, the hymn would also consist of only two parts, divided by καί,[51] which is not for (Bengel, Paulus, Kuinoel, and others, comp. Theophylact), but and. And the second part would consist of two parallel clauses, of which the first lays down the state of things in question after a purely objective manner (ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη), while the second designates it from the point of view of God’s subjectivity (ἐν ἀνθρ. εὐδοκία): on earth is salvation, among men is (God’s) good pleasure; ἐν ἀνθρ., namely, would not be in the case of men (Matthew 3:17; so usually), but local, as previously ἐν ὑψίστ. and ἐπὶ γῆς. Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 372, takes εὐδοκία as delight; “in genere humano (Messia nato) voluptas est et laetitia.” But εὐδοκία nowhere expresses this strong idea, but only the state of well-pleased satisfaction (as Ps. 144:16, LXX.), and the latter idea would in this place be too weak; we could not but expect χαρὰ καὶ ἀγαλλίασις, or the like. Moreover, according to Luke 2:13 (αἰνούντων τ. Θεόν) it is more in harmony with the text to understand εὐδοκία on the part of God, in which case the quite usual meaning of the word (ἐπανάπαυσις τοῦ Θεοῦ, Theophylact) is retained; “quod sc. Deus gratuito suo favore homines dignatus sit” (Calvin). The opposite: Ephesians 2:3. Bornemann, Schol. p. 19 ff., considers the whole as affirmed of Christ: “Χριστὸς ὁ κύριος δόξα ἐσται ἐν ὑψίστοις ὄντι Θεῷ κ.τ.λ., h. e. Messias celebrabit in coelis Deum et in terram deducet pacem divinam, documentum (in apposition) benevolentiae divinae erga homines.” But Luke himself specifies the contents as praise of God (Luke 2:13); and the assumption of Bornemann (after Paulus), that Luke has given only a small fragment of the hymn, is the more arbitrary, the more the few pregnant words are precisely in keeping with a heavenly song of praise.

[50] Olshausen (following Alberti, Obss., and Tittmann, Diss., Viteb. 1777) places a stop after γῆς, so that the first clause says: “God is now praised as in heaven, so also in the earth.” This is erroneous, because, according to the order of the words in Luke, the emphatic point would be not ἐπὶ γῆς, as in the Lord’s Prayer, but ἐν ὑψίστοις.

[51] Nevertheless Ebrard (on Olshausen) still defends the threefold division. According to him, the angels exult (1) that in heaven honour is given to God for the redemption now brought about; (2) that upon earth a kingdom of peace is now founded; (3) that between heaven and earth the right relation is restored, that God’s eye may again rest with good pleasure on mankind. This alleged third clause of necessity contains somewhat of tautology; and the text itself by its καί and by its contrast of heaven and earth yields only two clauses. Lange also, L. J. II. 1, p. 103, understands it in a threefold sense, but very arbitrarily takes εὐδοκία of the divine good pleasure manifested in a Person, referring to passages such as Ephesians 1:5-6.