About the Quirinian census in connection with the Nativity of Christ

Contents The significance of the question of the Quirinian census for determining the time of the birth of Christ and for determining the reliability of the Evangelist Luke. Ι. The essence of the difficulties associated with the one mentioned in St. Luke Quirinian census. - Assumptions that the Evangelist took advantage of the news of Josephus about the later Quirinian census and, confusing the matter, attributed it to the early period - the Nativity of Christ. - The groundlessness of these interpretations, for the third weather forecaster knows the two censuses well and strictly distinguishes between them. II. Objections that the general qualification for the “entire universe” was unknown under Augustus, and under Herod c. impossible, and their unconvincingness, for such a census is very probable in the first case and quite conceivable in the second case, which is why it should be recognized as valid in view of the direct testimony of the Evangelist Luke. III. The reality of what is mentioned in St. Luke Quirinian census and the conditions for its completion. – Josephus Flavius’s silence about her, the meaning and reason for this circumstance. – Periodic qualifications (after 14 years) and the attitude of the two Quirinian censuses to them. – The census principle of ιδία and the obligation it created to register at the place of origin, which is why even at the Nativity of Christ everyone had to go to “their city” for this; the meaning and scope of this requirement. IV. The connection between what is celebrated at St. Bows of qualification with Quirinius and the difficulties involved here. – Twice legateship of this dignitary in Syria and the assumption that the first time he was actually a military governor under another civilian (for example, called S. Saturninus by Tertullian); the relativity of this interpretation. – The possibility of Quiriniev’s legation in Syria around the birth of Christ and the admissibility of the simultaneous existence of two persons with this title (decessor and successor). – The reason for the Gospel mention is precisely Quirinius and the meaning of the entire chronological indication in the Gospels. Luke. – The reliability of the third Evangelist in general. The significance of the question of the Quirinian census for determining the time of the birth of Christ and for determining the reliability of the Evangelist Luke. The question of the Quirinian census mentioned in the Gospel of St. Luke (Luke 2:2), is of extreme importance simply because this event is associated with the birth of Christ and in its essence, as if, should serve to determine the time and circumstances of the latter. In such a combination, the power of this news is completely exceptional, but in fact does not receive full recognition and is even taxed directly in a negative sense. Science finds that this date of Luke contains so many difficulties that it forms a “chronological enigma” 1, which cannot be resolved, perhaps, until the end of the century 2, and all attempts of this kind only lead to obscuring the matter 3. Then the sacred historian will be the more suspicious, the more categorical his words. Doubt about this one case turns into a basis for undermining the historical value of the entire third Gospel, with which the most authoritative witness of the few monuments of primitive Christianity would disappear from us. From this it is clear that from this side the note about the Quirinian census turns out to be no less cardinal, for it completely protects or certainly undermines the historical dignity of the Gospel narratives of St. Luke. Due to the insufficiency of our information, it is quite natural that the chronological riddle still remains impenetrable in its particulars, but it is for this reason that the discussed historical and exegetical problem acquires special significance, as a test of the factual reliability of the third weather forecaster. In this very question lies the most basic scientific task to which all efforts should be reduced. It is fruitless and hopeless to succeed in a tangential solution to a theorem where the most necessary elements are missing, but it is quite legitimate to find out its admissibility or absurdity. Therefore, Luke’s chronological account first of all requires illumination based on its historical probability. With such a point of view, the immediate goal will actually be only to protect the actual possibility of the Gospel news, the revelation of which in one direction or another depends no longer on scientific insight, but on the discovery of new materials. The obligatory point of departure should be the acceptance of the Gospel chronological note for scientific verification without any prejudice, which its very singularity does not in any way justify. Evangelist Luke assimilates the advantage of historical-pragmatic accuracy in careful chronology and factual details (I, 1-4). And, in general, this quality is indisputably confirmed by the overwhelming majority of competent scientists who fully agree with Ambrose of Milan that S. Lucas velut quemdam historicum ordinem tenuit, using historico stylo 4. Here the singularity only means that the Evangelist enriches our historical knowledge if his information is plausible in relation to other data and seems actually possible in the specified historical situation. Within these boundaries, we will consider the whole matter, taking it in general fundamental outlines and not going into the details of such matters that have been sufficiently studied by others or do not yet allow for proper resolution except with the help of subjective hypotheses, where one can argue endlessly and without hope of fruitful scientific success 5 . Ι. The essence of the difficulties associated with the one mentioned in St. Luke Quirinian census. - Assumptions that the Evangelist took advantage of the news of Josephus about the later Quirinian census and, confusing the matter, attributed it to the early period - the Nativity of Christ. - The groundlessness of these interpretations, for the third weather forecaster knows the two censuses well and strictly distinguishes between them. The essential points of the Evangelist Luke’s story about the census at the Nativity of Christ are three points: that it 1) was under the Syrian “governor” Quirinius, 2) by virtue of the “command” of Augustus, which extended to the whole earth, and 3) carried out in Judea under Herod c. All these cardinal points are puzzling and undermine the credibility of the whole message, which can only claim historical attention if such difficulties are removed. And the latter are created by the inconsistency of the Gospel narrative with other historical testimony. Among them, the news of the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiqu. XVII, 13: 5. XVIII, 1: 1; 2: 1 Bell. jud. VII, 8: 1 and cf. II, 8: 1; 17: 18) is quite categorical that the census in Judea was carried out by Quirinius to eliminate Archelaus (Antiqu. XVII, 13: 2–3; Bell. jud. II, 7: 3. Dio Cass. LV, 27. Strab. XVI, 2: 46) in 6 p. Xp. (759 a C. U. coss. Aem. Lepido et Luc. Arruntio), i.e. 10–12–14 years after the time appointed by St. Luka. Here the question naturally arises as to how historically conceivable such a duality is, when an event that is not at all regular is depicted as repeating itself with close similarity in a very short period. History does not tolerate vain doublets, and therefore science is first of all forced to find out whether any of the authors confused it by dating the actual fact incorrectly. Attempts to impute this sin to Josephus do not save the third forecaster at all, since the result is that there was only one Quirinian census in Judea after the death of Herod. and after r. Chr. 6, why Luke, noting exactly him in Evang. 2:2 and in Acts. 5:37 7, is still mistaken chronologically, although for a shorter amount of time compared to the Jewish historiographer 8. Of two not entirely consistent reports, both now turn out to be false. Science, which for the sake of its self-preservation is ready even for heroic means, cannot reconcile with such a disappointing and suicidal result, that both historians mean the census after the removal of Archelaus and that John the Baptist was born in the last days of his reign, and Christ - at the beginning of the then Quirinian census or 7 years later than the generally accepted dating 9. However, this decision does not satisfy all requests and does not protect Luke’s competence, because, a) it rejects his note about the birth of the Forerunner under “Herod, king of the Jews” (I, 5), or forces him to arbitrarily see in him the ethnarch Archelaus 10 and b) brings the third forecaster into an irreconcilable conflict with the first, forcing him to completely sacrifice the Matthew Gospel, for in it is the Nativity of Christ directly refers to Herod's reign. 11 Thus, neither the denial of the chronological correctness of Josephus nor the adaptation of Luke to him helps the defense of the Evangelist and inevitably leads to the idea of ​​his inaccuracy, since the early census under Herod c. in the age of Augustus is not mentioned at all by the Jewish historian and there are no other indications 12, and the later one - after the expulsion of Archelaus - is completely natural and cannot be rejected with scientific convincingness 13. As a result, a categorical thesis is formulated that St. Luke did not understand the facts and timed the later event to a period of years 10–11 earlier 14, poorly compiling his abstract from Josephus 15. Whether this was allowed involuntarily or intentionally, in any case, it is necessary to accept that the Evangelist himself should not have obvious traces of this confusion, since if they were present, he should have noticed and corrected the error, but if conscious, of course, he would hasten to carefully conceal and hide it. In our example there is nothing like this, but quite the opposite is seen. Now, in serious scholarship, hardly anyone would argue that the third Gospel and the book of Acts belong to the same writer. And now the second gives us a speech to the Sanhedrin of the Pharisee Gamaliel, who says (Acts 5:37) that after the deceiver Theudas, “Judas the Galilean appeared during the census (μετά τοῦτον ἀνέστη Ἰούδας ὀ Γαλιλαῖος ἐν ταῖς ἠμέραις τῆς ἀπογραφῆς) and carried away quite a lot of people. In all factual details, this instruction coincides with the story of I. Flavius ​​about the confusion about the Quirinian qualification he describes, which we should assume there. It is no less true that even if the message of the Jewish historian is inaccurately dated, it can in no way be applied to the birth of Christ, because then it would decisively reinforce the mention of Luke, and this is not at all the intention of the criticism and would once and for all end the whole dispute. From this we have that St. Luke knew the census known to I. Flavius ​​Quirinius, considering it to have taken place after the birth of Christ and therefore different from the contemporary one of this great event. It is clear that the Evangelist does not allow confusion and thereby eliminates it. And a tendency of this kind is clearly visible in the gospel note. Its text (Luke 2:2) presents fluctuations in three main variations: a) αὕτη ἠ ἀπογραφή πρώτη ἐγένετο; b) αὕτη ἀπογραφή πρώτη ἐγένετο and c) αὕτη ἀπογραφή ἐγένετο πρώτη. The first edition is not confirmed by the most ancient authorities and is not justified logically, for it was clear to everyone that we are talking about the above-mentioned (Art. 1) census, and here the term would be appropriate only when reading ἀυτή, when it would be opposed to the Caesarian commandment, as its very (latest) fulfillment 16, in which case the conflict with the testimony of Josephus would disappear, since the implementation could have taken place even after death Herod v. and after the overthrow of Archelaus. The second option is textually stronger and differs from the third only in the degree of expressiveness of the emphasis on the term πρώτη. We must, however, agree that for the essence of the matter, all the discrepancies are similar in their dominant thought 17. In the first, only πρώτη belongs to the predicate (“this was the first census”), and in the second and third the word ἀπογραφή (“this was the first census,” or “this was the first census”) also goes there. For our purposes, the only thing that is important for now is that in all editions the moment of primacy is clearly put forward. And the whole question is what the latter refers to and what serves as a term of comparison for it. In the first case, the member directly emphasizes that the census was carried out by virtue of Augustus’s command, and here πρώτη cannot note the order of its execution in general 18, but among them it distinguishes a special group of close and related acts, which are distinguished chronologically. The distinction gravitates not to the previous, but to the future and will say that “this census was the first” of those that took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria. This establishes at least two Quirinian qualifications. On the contrary, in the second and third editions the structure is such that the experiences of implementing Caesar's will are described there and in their order the first of all, which took place during the Syrian governorship of Quirinius, is specially depicted. The point of comparison will be the early state, where there was nothing like this, but now it begins for the first time and precisely under Quirinius. Here the personality of the ruler simply more precisely designates the moment of this primacy, which relates entirely to the past and in it marks a new or first phenomenon that happened under Quirinius. The latter, from this point of view, is remarkable only for its synchronicity with the first census, which is why it does not allow rather than assumes a second one with it. For these reasons, it is accepted by many that πρώτη indicates the first census from the Augusti 19, but not the Quirinii, the duality or plurality of which is not hinted at at all 20. This position is philologically permissible, but its energy is in vain exaggerated to too extreme acuity. They say that the first of the August censuses is being established. There is no doubt that this strongly emphasizes a strictly chronological moment, but even for the beginning of a new order, numerical primacy is natural under the only condition if there is or is foreseen repetition or multiplicity. This shade of parallelism between the earlier and the later is certainly undeniable in πρώτη 21 and can only be eliminated when everything is exhausted by anticipation in two events, where one was before the other. In this spirit, such interpretations are still defended, as if Luke’s phrase says that the census he invoked was before the governorship of Quirinius in Syria 22. For this purpose, philological analogies are given - and they, of course, are virtually indisputable, but they are only applied here with great force. Such an understanding contradicts the immediate impression of readers, could not be born naturally and therefore remained unknown until modern times 23. This directly demonstrates its artificiality in the sense that it is caused not by philological, but by extraneous considerations. And there is no doubt that this attempt was invented and supported for the sake of Luke’s agreement with Josephus, and philological arguments are simply drawn to serve pre-occupied interests that are not contained in them at all and are not postulated by them at all. It is inevitable that great stretches are allowed here. The term πρῶτος received the idea of ​​anticipation in later language through merger with πρότερος, having assimilated its special energy. But the second of them states the primacy of one of two homogeneous phenomena, which are similar in nature and can replace each other, differing from each other only in chronological separation. The objects being compared must necessarily be similar, and this is not at all the case with the census with the Quirinian governorship, since they are completely disparate. For the necessary rapprochement, it will be necessary to overextend the Gospel saying by introducing complementary insertions, as if this census was before the one that took place during the reign of Quirinius in Syria. With such additions it is easy to achieve everything and therefore nothing reliable can be achieved if such opportunities are equal. In our example, elementary grammar also protests, because gent. absolutus praesens'a suggests a certain simultaneity of action with the event of the main sentence and in no way chronological disunity 24. And if two censuses come together, and the second of them is characterized by the Syrian legation of Quirinius, then for balance it would be necessary to say the same about the first, when the comparison itself would not be required, since this census was, for example, under Saturninus or Varus. This means that we must admit that in Luke the primacy is not limited to the relation to the past, but also refers to its continuation. Yes, anything else would be unthinkable from any point of view. Let this be something new, something that has not happened before. Still, of course, the Jewish qualification is specifically depicted, and it is unlikely that the sacred historian could vouch for and dare to say that this is the first case of the fulfillment of the Augustan will, which concerned “the entire universe.” After all, he would need to collect accurate information about the entire orbis Romanus, but for his purposes, was there even the slightest need for this? For immediate matters, it was absolutely indifferent whether the first or tenth of all August censuses took place at the birth of Christ. This calculation gained some importance only when the sphere was limited to the horizon of the subject of speech, where the author could know and distribute all the moments. We will have a formula that of the censuses commanded by Augustus, the census mentioned by the Evangelist was the first in Judea, which had not previously been subjected to these operations. For St. In Luke, it would then be the first and only one during the narration about it, but such an idea is certainly incredible for the third weather forecaster, for in the 70s he, of course, heard about the events after Archelaus and already in the book of Acts, through the mouth of Gamaliel, he states an even later qualification. On the other hand, with the absolute singularity of a phenomenon, there was no minimal reason to define it by secondary data, since here uniqueness is acquired not through them, but in addition to them. In the example under consideration, we see something completely different, and from here we must conclude that it is the qualifying details that establish the marked primacy. Consequently, the census under discussion was the first precisely because it took place under Quirinius. But if both of these conditions covered each other without a trace, then the numeric predicate would certainly have to disappear, because the qualification would be unmistakably described by the name of the Syrian governor with individual singularity, excluding any misunderstandings. As soon as both qualifications are taken and considered equally necessary, this irresistibly convinces that in the Quirinian census acts a distinction is required between several similar acts, of which one was the first and then accompanied (after) by the second. Now it is indisputable that special emphasis is placed on the chronological moment and this gives a numeric distinction between the censuses in connection with the governorship of Quirinius in Syria or with the indication of at least two 25 in it. In this case, it is unshakable that, knowing and directly noting the two qualifications, the Evangelist Luke could not confuse them 26 and decisively eliminates this guess, expressively emphasizing that he is talking about the first experience of applying Augustan fiscal policy in Judea and precisely about that which, during the reign of Quirinius, was previous in comparison with the later. The sacred author, as it were, warns in advance that he could not confuse what he divides. so impressive. A similar conclusion is obtained with a more general interpretation. The concept “first” by its very nature is reciprocal and refers with equal compulsion to both the preceding and the subsequent. In order to assimilate only one recurrent shade, it is necessary that the second be completely unthinkable, otherwise the reader’s immediate perception will certainly assume both, taking the beginning as the continuation. But, according to the book of Acts (5:37), St. Luke knew about the special later Quirinian census and involuntarily referred to it in an orderly manner, why he should and would have been able to choose a different turn if the qualification around the Nativity of Christ is noted only as initial news in relation to the previous system. Readers, too, were not ignorant of the events after Archelaus and instinctively inclined to see in the ἀπογραφή πρώτη the first census in comparison with the second - and in order to avoid confusion, the writer would be obliged to say more precisely that he meant only the initial act in an order that was not there before. II. Objections that the general qualification for the “entire universe” was unknown under Augustus, and under Herod c. impossible, and their unconvincingness, for such a census is very probable in the first case and quite conceivable in the second case, which is why it should be recognized as valid in view of the direct testimony of the Evangelist Luke. Under these conditions, it is hardly legal and scientific to deny that St. Luke, with the name of his first census, marks another one, similar to it and well known to him. But this is a census that was accompanied by the revolt of Judas the Galilean and coincided with that depicted by Josephus. This second one is revered by the next one, and from it the one who was at the Nativity of Christ is firmly distinguished chronologically, just like the first one. It is clear that the Evangelist neither unconsciously nor intentionally allows his words to be confused with the dates of the Jewish historian, categorically distinguishing them. Here the very idea that the third weather forecaster was confused by attributing a later event to an earlier period is fundamentally intolerable and unsuitable. No, he strictly distinguishes between two cases and testifies about the earlier one that it was the case under Augustus due to his “command” to describe “the entire universe.” At this point, a new difficulty arises before us, that during the entire reign of Augustus there was no “worldwide” census, which seems unnecessary or even completely impossible 27 . It is true that history does not yet know the “command” in the formulation of the third Gospel, but the conclusion from ignorance to non-existence is always arbitrary and unconvincing. First of all, we must remember that our authorities are still insufficient for the history of the Augustan century 28, which in many ways remains dark for us - especially since the 15th year ante Chr. until the 14th post Chr. 29, and for remote provinces it turns out to be even more mysterious 30. Here the arguments e silentio are completely inappropriate, and the very possibility of something new should be determined by the totality of known data, but only with an approximate probability, far from direct certainty. From this perspective, the following picture emerges. After the previous unrest, the Roman Empire needed systematic and relentless ordering. It was not yet a state proper, but only a civitas Romana with a complex of different provinces that were not unconditionally connected to their center and threatened to fall away or break away 31 . It was necessary to connect all the elements into an integral mass with a strict subordination of parts, each of which should be fully known in advance from all sides. For this purpose, a general qualification or census was an urgent need of the state structure itself 32. Augustus was too wise and insightful not to see this and not take appropriate measures. And there is no doubt that systematic and comprehensive activities have developed in this direction. The census of Roman citizens, which was regularly repeated, was associated with land surveying enterprises, and the provinces were subject to these operations in a variety of ways - statistical, fiscal, etc. 33 Until now, the overall plan has not yet been revealed in these grandiose and incessant works, but for them there must be a single motivating source so that the process that has begun is not interrupted and proceeds normally. In this sense, scientists reasonably assume that a general decree regarding censuses is possible from 727 a C. U. (27 BC) or from 723 (23) - from the time of the division of the provinces into senate and imperial upon the assumption of proconsular dignity by Augustus (proconsulare imperium 34), or from the moment he received tribunician power (tribunica potestas 35). When establishing a solid state system, this is in every possible way natural and should be recognized as historically probable. But, of course, this order could not be implemented at once and was applied throughout the empire for a long time, at different times and in a variety of ways. Hence it is not surprising that it reached Judea and began to be fulfilled here only around the birth of Christ. Then it is completely acceptable that in the note about the command of Caesar, St. Luke means (2:1) precisely that ancient act 36, which was δόγμα or a special public decree 37. And such an interpretation is all the more likely since the Evangelist does not use ἀπογραφῆναι and in contrast to the aorist (in verse 5) ἀπογράψασθαι for the completed act 38 emphasizes in praesens ἀπογράφεσθαι an indefinite duration, during which Caesar’s order regarding regular censuses was to be implemented 39 and finally reached Judea 40. The interpretation is permissible theoretically and factually, but still not the most natural for the Gospel text. Reading it directly impresses upon everyone that all the events described were in a certain chronological relationship, even if not so close. True, the phrase ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκοίναις is chronologically very extensible 41 , however, it is not limitless and is delineated in its scope by the closest connection. But for us, for the previous one, it is directly given by “the days of Herod” (1:5) in relation to the gospel history presented. The separation of these moments over a long period of over 20 years does not seem natural in any way and can only be defended with some tendentiousness, for example, in order to attribute the birth of Christ to the era after Herod c. or Archelaus. The subsequent context irresistibly suggests that the depicted census took place under Quirinius by virtue of the above-mentioned Caesarian command, which, chronologically preceding, least of all distances itself from it for a long time. And from the standpoint of possibility, such a decree is no more appropriate at the head of the licensing process than during it. At the beginning of a state organization, it is unlikely that the entire task was presented with such clarity that all the paths, details and stages were immediately outlined. It is much more likely that only the need for census regulation was clearly felt and a general gradual plan was drawn up, and the actual implementation was left to political prudence with adaptation to various historical complications. And by its very essence, this enterprise was too complex to foresee and predetermine its entire course. On the contrary, if the matter was carried out systematically for the sake of general state interests, then it should have been reduced to a reconciling agreement, but the latter required factual data. From this point of view, it is most plausible that with the accumulation of various observations and on the basis of them, a unifying review was undertaken, where all the previous disparate attempts were able to merge into a common result. And nothing prevents this assumption. It would have long been necessary to declare as a dogmatic axiom that πᾶσα ἡ οἰκουμένη (in Luke 2:1) means the Roman Empire in orbis Romanus - and the attribution of expressions to the “whole world” 42 rudely imposes a blatant absurdity on the sacred historian 43 , and the limitation to Palestine alone is not motivated subject-philological parallels, but only the naked tendentiousness of prejudice, as if Luke thoughtlessly and chaotically copied from Josephus 44. Here it is noted that back in 727, the C.U. provinces were divided into senatorial and imperial, and Augustus had complete control over only the latter, which is why his census command could not capture the former and extend to “the entire universe.” However, the Caesars always acquired the right of financial control and census intervention for all areas 45, and legally they could achieve this through the Senate, passing through it the necessary edict, which was then published by imperial order 46. And about Augustus, it is indisputable that he gradually combined in his person all the state-governmental competence and was in fact a full monarch, although he did not call himself such and outwardly shied away from this 47. From this side, the decree of Caesar mentioned by Luke is theoretically just as permissible 20–25 years before the river. Chron., as well as around it, and the Gospel text requires more of the second. And this measure cannot be considered completely unnecessary and idle. For this reason, they cite that statistical information without any census could be obtained from official data collected by provincial authorities and delivered to Rome 48. But again, Luke does not say at all and no one defends that new censuses were taken everywhere throughout the “whole universe.” As always and everywhere, in some places they were carried out for the first time, and in others they were exhausted by factual verification, without ceasing to be censuses, although significantly simplified. And it is unfair to emphasize that in the capital of the empire there was all the necessary material, which did not need either additions or amendments: this is incredible, but in essence it is excluded by the practice of regularly repeated qualifications, which corrected each other. And in the example under consideration, it is assumed that it was commanded to do only what was required in each area for statistical and licensing punctuality, and then report to Rome. According to what has been said, it is unlawful to dogmatically deny that a reasonable command could have existed under Augustus. On the contrary, with him both a decree and a general qualification are quite possible 49, even if the opponents of the third forecaster say that, apparently, it was he who established a regular census and systematically carried them out in different provinces 50. But - they object - there is no information that one of these was committed in the era of the Nativity of Christ in Judea, meanwhile, its very probability seems doubtful. The fact is that it was not a province proper, being a kingdom with an independent head. Herod v. was a rex socius and knew how to preserve this dignity of royal autonomy throughout his life for himself and for Palestine under his control. In a mutual union, Herod c. was to a certain extent an equal member, and the sphere of his internal rule could not be legally invaded by another, and he would not tolerate such an encroachment. The census, of course, was the most sensitive intervention in state life and served as evidence of subordination, which is why it was absolutely unthinkable under Herod. and Luke reports it falsely or erroneously 51, for it did not exist until 759 after the overthrow of Archelaus 52. This argument has impressive persuasiveness, but is very far from unshakable. All its strength rests on perfect legal abstraction, which by its very harmony testifies to its complete ideality. The latter is never adequately embodied and least of all realized in politics, where norm and reality are more often disharmonious. It is always dangerous to conclude from the first to the second, which itself must illuminate the nature and extent of its application. Everything here is decided not by legal logic, but by empirical evidence. In this regard, it is accepted in science that the state and legal position of Herod c. is not clear and cannot be precisely defined 53 . Usually he is considered rex socials, greatly exaggerating the meaning of “allies” 54, sometimes bearing this name only due to the obligation to maintain troops called socii or auxilia, in contrast to legions 55. But even with this exaggeration, Herod’s autocracy would not have been saved at all, for then all the vassal kings were rather his governors tolerated by Rome, who, wearing only the titulus sine re, had to follow the orders of Caesar 56. The entire long reign of Herod c. loudly speaks of his complete dependence and actual subordination, since he always had to live not by law, but by mercy 57, serving and pleasing Caesar 58. The reason for this is not in the particulars, but in the very basis. Herod v. was not a born king of the Jews and, having cunningly achieved this title under Anthony, lost absolutely everything with his fall. And if he again received royal dignity, it was only due to the special condescension of Augustus, which was not forced, and therefore was now more likely a rex restitutus than a rex socius with the inalienable prerogatives of an equal “ally” 59 . Such autonomy was not of original origin and was not natural, but stemmed from outside consent and was completely conditioned by it in its properties and even in its very existence. This was the king proper according to Senatus et Caesaris beneficio. And Augustus categorically expressed that the relationship to Herod c. motivated only by his amicitia; here personal initiative was allowed too little if, regarding the independently undertaken war against the Arabs, Caesar directly wrote (Jos. Flavii Antiqu. XVI, 9:3) that hitherto he considered the Jewish ruler a friend, and now he would treat him as a subordinate (πάλαι χρώμενος αὐτῷ φίλῳ νῦν ὑπηκόῳ χρήσεται). Supports of Herod's kingship. were so fragile that he was always in danger of falling to the level of a simple stipendary. And recent history clearly illustrates this unenviable situation. Herod’s last testament was sanctioned in Rome, but Archelaus was so far appointed only “ethnarch,” promising him a kingdom in the future for good behavior (Antiqu. XVII, 11:4. Bell. jud. II, 6:3). Then, ten years later, this ruler was completely deposed, and his region was annexed to Syria under special conditions 60. Every shadow of Jewish state autonomy was destroyed - and this was done solely by the will of Rome in accordance with its exceptional views. Even though Archelaus was worthless and demanded elimination, what prevented him from installing a successor? After all, there was no shortage of applicants, and not all of them were hopelessly bad or worse than the tetrarchs still preserved. True, there was now a voice for such annexation among the people themselves, but similar statements were no less loudly expressed even earlier - 9-10 years ago, and the Jews firmly spoke out in favor of inclusion in the region of Syria with subordination to the local governors (Antiqu. XVII, 11: 2 fin.), even seeing this as a fundamental advantage (cf. Antiqu. XVI, 11:4), meanwhile, all this did not meet Roman approval at that time, although it went towards meeting the imperialist plans 61. This means that even after the overthrow of Archelaus, the desire for Judaism was in no way forced for Rome, which in this case should have taken this measure much earlier. The Roman government did what it wanted and when it wanted, for it was always guided by its own personal interests with the subordination of all others to them. It was in no way bound by the force of circumstances and postponed its decisions, because it was not mechanically moved by external events, but skillfully foresaw and prepared them for its own benefit better than many later kingdoms up to our time. Everywhere and always the will of Rome and its sovereign requests dominated. Herod v. fully recognized this and, not without skill, adapted to this, outwardly retaining royal prestige. And the whole tragedy of his reign was that he had to agree on the irreconcilable and felt the real ephemerality of his efforts. Given such complications, could he have prevented Roman absolutism, and would the latter have stood on ceremony with its opposition on the way to achieving its goals? Here, historically, only an inevitable compromise with the submission of the first to the second is possible, since otherwise the strong would crush the weak, who, for the sake of self-preservation, was obliged to fulfill Roman orders. This is confirmed by the closest analogy that - no less than Herod c. The independent king of Cappodocia, Archelaus, was forced (under the governor of Syria, Vitellius) to make an inventory of property and demand taxes “in the Roman style” from the Clit tribe under his control, although because of this they went to the Taurus Mountains (Tacit. Annal. VI, 41). If we impartially consider all of the above, then it will hardly be scientifically possible to argue that the census under Augustus in Herod’s domains was not excluded by the dignity of the regis socii 62 , but is historically completely possible and in fact probable 63 , as some opponents of Luke 64 admit. Of course, from posse to esse there is too great a distance, and here those who allow this leap are objected that they reveal “astonishing thoughtlessness in the choice of arguments,” for for Rome it was not “particularly tempting to undertake a statistical study of a foreign land,” for which Herod v. could only thank him, since the income - all the same - would have gone entirely to him, and not to the treasury of Augustus 65. This thoughtfulness is no less striking for its unconvincingness. In it, a statistical census of Judea is considered possible and even pleasant, but it is supposedly useless for Rome and therefore unthinkable on its part. However, it was fruitful for Herod. - she was therefore important for the Roman government, to which his kingdom belonged. And since he was a rex socius, it was not at all indifferent to the Roman authorities what kind of ally he had. In this regard, personal searches were always desirable and indirectly served financial interests. Under Herod c. Judea presented very large offerings and gifts to Augustus, and, accepting them, the latter could not allow himself to be limited to handouts, but had to know the means of his “ally,” who was hardly always generous of his own accord. In any case, this whetted the appetites of Rome, and statistical awareness of how much to take from Herod’s treasury under various pretexts in one way or another was essential for it. At the same time, it is far from the absolute certainty, as if under Herod. Palestine was completely free from any obligation to the Roman power 66. This is a controversial issue and can be resolved in the direction of some financial dependence 67 . And if it did not exist in fact yet, then it could have been envisaged, but no one says that here “statistical research” was carried out in self-sufficient interests, which it never has anywhere. It is necessary to accept that, while at least doing more statistics 68, Rome was preparing a strong future 69, but this particular policy is the most natural and the only probable one for the Roman government. III. The reality of what is mentioned in St. Luke Quirinian census and the conditions for its completion. – Josephus Flavius’s silence about her, the meaning and reason for this circumstance. – Periodic qualifications (after 14 years) and the attitude of the two Quirinian censuses to them. – The census principle of ιδία and the obligation it created to register at the place of origin, which is why even at the Nativity of Christ everyone had to go to “their city” for this; the meaning and scope of this requirement. Based on the strength of all the data presented, we have the right to assert that the possibility of the Quirinian census in Palestine under Herod c. is theoretically supported and in the direction of its reality. But then this census should have left actual factual traces that could not escape the attention and registration of historiographers of the given period. In this regard, the complete silence of Josephus, who specially studied and depicted in detail the fate of his people, and was especially knowledgeable and competent about the Herodian era, is extremely strange. It cannot be denied that this circumstance is mysterious and creates a new complication in solving a complicated issue, but it does not at all have fatal importance for him. If a posse ad esse non valet consequents, then it is even less legitimate to conclude from non-mention to non-existence. And this logical requirement is most mandatory in the case under consideration for Luke’s opponents. The latter is overwhelmingly proclaimed by the testimony of Josephus (in Antiqu. ХVШ, 3:3) about Christ is inauthentic, being a later interpolation 70, and in the original there were not even hints of this kind. Does it really follow from this that the Lord the Savior actually did not exist, and Christianity arose and developed apart from Him and generally without any clear individual mediation? Let us assume that there are adherents of an affirmative answer, but these are not scientific skeptics regarding the first Quirinian census, but only an insignificant unit of a few dreamers who seek to erase all Christian originality, as an ordinary necessary product of natural-historical development, where personal participation is unnecessary and inappropriately substantiating 71 . These writers are based on fundamental religious-historical premises and use Josephus only for illustration, without at all extracting their theses e silentio from him and in no way preaching such logical naivety. Science believes that the incomparably typical effect of Christianity inevitably postulates an equal individual cause in the personal Christ. Along with this, it is no less true that Josephus could not have been unaware of Him and, being an objectively accurate chronicler, should have mentioned him with sufficient expressiveness. And it is impossible to explain this silence, as if Christianity seemed to the Jewish gaze not quite serious and interesting. If the Jewish historian talks about John the Baptist (Antiqu. ХVIII, 5:2), then it was all the more necessary to talk about Christ in the 80s and 90s, when the former was forgotten in Jewish circles and was generally absorbed by Christianity, and the latter was growing in all its victorious greatness. It was impossible not to see it and to ignore it in the history of the Jewish people, for which it was a menacingly fatal event of eternal importance. Undoubtedly, Josephus knew about Christ and that is why he kept silent about Him with the same tendentiousness with which, consigning to oblivion the personality of the Apostle Paul 72 , purely Jewish-rabbinic documents 73 are silent about this, so as not to inform and preserve the memory of Him Who was too clear for them in the incriminating and crushing reality of His existence and further exploit. And since the historian hid all of Christianity, it is not at all surprising that a particular statistical and economic episode remained unnoted, which in itself did not have exceptional value for Jewry. He received the latter in later application and completion, but was obscured behind them and could have been skipped without much damage to the matter. Speaking about the (second) Quirinian census, it was difficult to avoid speeches about Christ, meanwhile Josephus did not want to touch this subject, which is why he logically inclined to silence it too. Is this the reason why we do not hear about it from the lips of a Jewish historian? After all, these were two connected links - and, hiding one, it was necessary to hide the other. However, there could also be special motives. Josephus wrote for the Greco-Roman world 74 for the glory of his people and sought to prove their greatness, worthy not just of independence, but even of primacy in the world (Antiqu. XVI, 6: 8) 75 . The sad political fate was a living contradiction and an indelible reproach. The historian could remove this obstacle for his own purposes only by emphasizing that everything was accomplished through violence with the fierce and complete confrontation of the weak. The case of obedient submission to the Roman invasion in the first census, which did not meet resistance and did not arouse opposition despite the external splendor of the kingdom of Judea, was too inconsistent with these interests and was naturally sacrificed to them. Here it is worthy of attention that Josephus Flavius ​​speaks rather briefly and dully about the second census, covering it with characteristic nationalistic bias 76 . From his abstract it is impossible to form a completely clear idea, but the immediate impression is that the qualification extended to the estates of Archelaus. But even here this act did not find either direct sympathy or passive connivance, but, on the contrary, was accepted with hostility, which is clearly emphasized by the plastic depiction of the indignation of Judas the Galilean, about which the historian narrates in much more detail and clearly, thereby paralyzing unfavorable conclusions. At the first census there was no such weakening authority, without which it would have upset the entire polemical-apologetic structure, and therefore is removed from the pages of the chronicle. Finally, both the knowledge and punctuality of Josephus are exaggerated, who does not have all the sources and, for example, knows almost nothing about the time after Herod c. and writes about him mainly on the basis of his favorite and court panegyrist Nicholas of Damascus 77 . But they emphasize that about the last years of Herod’s reign, when the birth of Christ took place, Josephus Flavius ​​had the most detailed and accurate data 78, being also competent in the history of the high priests 79. In fact, it turns out to be something else and at least gets a different sample. The Jewish author here is scrupulous and detailed to the point of unbearability, but exclusively about family squabbles in the Herodov family and about the external relations associated with them. Contrary to this, his reports on internal affairs in Palestine and financial and economic circumstances are extremely dry and completely insufficient. And the Quirinian census itself is spoken of vaguely and evasively, 80 and the author, not caring about the fundamentals, was either not at all interested in this subject or did not want to talk about it, and then it is clear that his first qualification has completely disappeared. In any case, the failure to mention Josephus does not indicate the non-existence of the fact under discussion. Rather, it is permissible to think that he knew about it, but kept silent tendentiously 81. Now Luke’s testimony is freed from all objections and doubts, and its singularity only enhances the value of both the referent and his information. How long is the holy the historian has not been convincingly refuted or scientifically discredited - he must be accepted with confidence that what he reported was factual. Thus, we undertake to see in the census mentioned by Luke Quirinius a real event, which cannot be doubted with reasonable thoroughness. What is required next is no longer justification, but only clarification of how it could have happened historically. Here, in recent times, rich material has been acquired, the attraction and skillful application of which science owes a lot and is especially indebted to Professor V. M. Ramsey, although one should not think that this has achieved a lasting solution to the problem. We mean mainly the data from Egyptian papyri. From them it is revealed that double censuses were regularly carried out: annually - property censuses and after 14 years - household censuses or technically αἰ κατ’ οἰκίαν ἀπογραφαί 82 . The latter were performed in the fifteenth year, so that those born at the end of the qualification cycle could be included 83. Enough of the most accurate dates have been preserved, according to which the entire procedure can be clearly reconstructed. If we now apply it to Palestine, then the second Quirinian census - after the removal of Archelaus - will be quite suitable for it, and the earlier one will fall for a time around the birth of Christ. True, this will be the 9th year BC, and prof. V. M. Ramsey, who previously defended the 6th year, was forced to find special arguments for a two-year delay 84. But there is no need for this, because the difficulty itself is fictitious. The year of the birth of Christ is unknown independently and is now defined very differently: they fluctuate more between the seventh (sixth) 85 and the fifth 86, not definitively leaning towards any one 87 and admitting along with them the fourth 88, tenth 89 and eighth, which is established and protected in addition to the census calculations 90, although it impeccably answers them 91, for the census, which included 9th year, could have been exactly in the eighth 92. Here the harmony seems very striking, but for that very reason it seems artificial. There is no actual support for it yet. Therefore, it is fair and reasonable to object that the local Egyptian system cannot be extended to Palestine, which was in completely different conditions, meanwhile, financial licensing practice is always and everywhere distinguished by a variety of adaptations 93 . And this objection was all the stronger because the Egyptian norms were applied with significant changes to Palestinian relations and were not justified by them. The very admissibility of the cyclic Egyptian periodicity is debatable here and its suitability for business is doubtful. From the second Quirinian census to the first one we are looking for, it turns out to be 14 years, but the point of departure for these calculations is drawn here arbitrarily and unreasonably, since that qualification was carried out not according to the requirements of census systematicity, but due to historical necessity, when it was necessary to deal with financial regulation after the overthrow of Archelaus, in addition to any qualification deadlines. Here, the coincidence of the 6th year after the birth of Christ with the beginning of the census cycle according to the Egyptian layout was accidental and does not in the least indicate the dominance of census periodicity in Palestine 94. However, the opposite understanding is also permissible, that the change in the Jewish government not only coincided with the census, but was even specially adapted to it; it is true that Archelaus was removed due to complaints about his unworthiness, but he was no better before. Rome was well aware of this and still hesitated, although Judea asked to join Syria. Then they did not respect this, leaving everything to their own discretion 95 . Obviously, the latter was the only decisive factor in the fate of Archelaus, who was removed at a certain moment solely at his behest. Naturally, regardless of the personality and life of Herod’s heir, a convenient time was chosen for a change in the Jewish government, for which the most favorable, undoubtedly, was the beginning of the census period. Therefore, it is quite possible that it was not the fall of the Jewish prince that caused the census, but its approach determined this event to be timed for it. And this is natural in the history of Archelaus. According to the will of Herod c. he was confirmed in hereditary rights with considerable restrictions, for he was appointed only “ethnarch”, promising royal dignity in the future, depending on his merits 96. Archelaus' position was provisionally precarious, and Rome retained the legal freedom to discuss his fate according to its own considerations and with the best success for itself. In these interests, it was more useful not to resort to extraordinary measures that could give rise to special difficulties - and here it is natural that the Roman authorities, knowing from experience the rebellious spirit of Judaism, hastened to avoid unnecessary irritability and used an ordinary state statistical audit for Palestine. The latter was not created by the fate of Archelaus, but came to it itself and was the main engine of political acts. We also guess about this from other observations, which indicate that this Jewish “ethnarch” was not the only one speaking here. On the contrary, Augustus brought to justice all three Palestinian rulers 97 and if he punished only Archelaus with exile, then it does not in the least follow that the whole matter was waged because of him. Apparently, it was conceived on a much broader scale and affected different individuals, although it erupted into disaster for them precisely where it was more profitable for Rome. Therefore, the results of the government change in Judea were not limited to it and extended much further. Luke's opponents themselves say that the second Quirinian census embraced all of Syria 98 with the inclusion of the entire former kingdom of Herod 99 - and this is not only probable 100, but also very typical in its typical features. Josephus's abstract, although not very clear, contains extremely significant features. There we read that Quirinius was sent by Caesar to make an inventory throughout Syria and to evaluate the heritage of Archelaus (Antiqu. ХVII, 13, 5: .. ὐπατικός ἀποτιμησόμενός τε τά ἐυ Συρίᾳ καὶ τὸν Ἀρχελάου ἀποδωσόμενος οἶκον). In a holistic task, two sides are distinguished - general and special, incremental to it. A similar relationship is noted later (Antiqu. XVIII, 1: 1), when it is said that Quirinius was sent to Syria in order to be a judge of the people and make an assessment of their property status (Κυρίνιος…ἐπί Συρίας παρῆν, ὐπό Καίσαρος δικαιοδότης τοῦ ἔθνους ἀπεσταλμένος καί τιμητής τῶν οὐσιῶν γενησόμενος), and came to newly annexed Judea to make a property inventory and confiscate the Archelaus property (παρῆν δέ καί Κυρίνιος εἰς τήν Ἰουδαίαν προσθήκην τῆς Συρίας γενομένην ἀποτιμησόμενός τε αὐτῶν τάς οὐσίας καί ἀποδωσόμενος τά Ἀρχελάου χρήματα), having fulfilled this mission in both indicated directions (Antiqu. XVIII, 2, 1: ἀποτιμήσεων πέρας ἐχουσῶν...). The result is the following inconsistent gradations: 1) a census throughout Syria, 2) its extension to Judea, and 3) a special application here to the heritage of Archelaus. From this it is clear, first of all, that a general ἀπογραφή was now taking place throughout the entire province, as is perfectly confirmed by the fragmentum Orsato or titulus Venetus. This inscription, originally in Beirut, was found in Venice, then first copied by Sertorius Ursatus of Padua in 1674 and published after his death in 1719; it was long considered inauthentic, but in 1880 the engineer Seguso found the second, larger half, and now both fragments are recognized by everyone and usually refer to the first Quirinian governorship in Syria 101. It directly states that a certain Aemilius Secundus, by order of S. Quirinius, carried out a census in Apamea (idem jussu Quirini censum egi Apamenae civitatis) and registered 17,000 citizens. This was an all-Syrian census, which equally extended to Judea and - in addition to this - also captured the property of Archelaus. The census of Judea proper was the same for all of Syria and was supplemented by an assessment of Archelaus' inheritance. There was an additional part, and it belonged to the whole, without at all conditioning it. In this case, we must accept that now under Quirinius a regional census took place, and the assessment of Archelaus’ property was only adapted to it. His fall did not cause a deliberate census, but only prompted the adoption of special census measures in Judea, where the census was organized on a common basis for the entire province. According to the above, we have the right to consider the Quirinian census under consideration not accidental, due to a particular historical conflict, and to see in it a normal phenomenon, which, both chronologically and in its properties, exactly corresponds to the Egyptian census system. It has already been expressed that it is impossible to directly imply the orbis Romanus from Egypt to the whole, but there should be something similar in other provinces, including Syria 102. Now the actual applicability of the Egyptian method to Palestine during the time of Augustus 103 is directly substantiated. This is how support is acquired - from the date of the known Quirinian qualification to go to the earlier one. This will be about the 8th year close to the birth of Christ, and then Luke's testimony is satisfactorily justified. It is only necessary to prove that the theoretical conclusion has sufficient factual correspondence, and on this side not everything was strong yet. It was assumed that a general qualification was carried out in Palestine under Herod. in special national-Jewish forms and typically differed from the usual Roman 104, which did not require the appearance of persons at the place of origin, as described by the third Evangelist. With such a disparity, the connection between them disappeared and a natural doubt arose in the existence of the second, as unusual and almost impossible, because going “to one’s city” would require a massive resettlement of Jews 105 and is hardly achievable due to the unknown for the majority about one’s ancestral center. Here the matter was not hopeless until now - due to attention to the indisputable adaptability of Roman policy, which, in its own interests, had to be consistent with the position of the Jewish king and kingdom. Now everything is becoming clearer without these probable guesses and is revealed with factual certainty. First of all, in the era under review, the ancient Roman census system did not at all maintain dominance, and Egyptian practice cannot be considered exclusively local in its functioning only in its narrow area. Or rather, it will be the exact opposite, that it was not Augustus who introduced qualifications in Egypt after 14 years 106, but his government adopted Egyptian norms, applied them to their plans and used them throughout the empire, where it was convenient and useful 107. An important factor in them was that cyclic censuses were carried out precisely at the place of origin 108 - and this was such a regular requirement 109 that it was categorically ordered to gather guda for the sake of qualification. Visual evidence was provided by the decree of the prefect of Egypt S. Vibius Maximus dated 104 AD. Chronicle, “so that in view of the census (ἀπογραφή) everyone who for any reason is outside their district (vόμος) returns to their (ancestral) homes (είς τά ἐαυτῶν ἐφέστια) in order to give the usual testimony (announcements) for census 110 and cultivate your area 111.” This was an obligatory and universal condition of licensing practice, where it rested on deep fundamental premises with enormous political and economic significance. The point was the principle of ἰδία, according to which each person had to have his own sphere of activity and was attached to it. According to the natural order of things, this point was the place of origin (forum originis), which served for a given person as his ἰδία. This system initially protected the national economic interests, but, by enslaving small farmers to large ones, it helped the formation of the colony 112. The beginning of ἰδία was then a significant stimulus to economic policy 113 and under Augustus it was spread and practiced in the eastern part of the empire 114 . It is clear that qualifications there were carried out accordingly, or by making entries in family and ancestral centers. From this side, the very form of the qualification mentioned by Luke will not be extraordinary and unusual, but quite normal, which was observed everywhere in similar circumstances. Now all bewilderments disappear, for it is completely wrong that the papyri supposedly refers only to places of residence, but not origin, as stated in the third Gospel, for the salvation of which it is impossible to extract strict parallels from there 115. In fact, it was just the opposite, that there was supposed to be a ancestral place of residence and possession, where those who lived outside them or from their places of residence were obliged to come, since the latter were not sovereign-tribal. In this light, the words of Luke (2:3) receive a completely clear meaning, that by virtue of the census carried out in Palestine according to Caesar’s decree, εἰς τήν έαυτοῦ πόλιν. You just don’t need to give them an incongruous meaning, as if everyone should know their genealogy in advance and use it to find their census center 116 . This would be both absurd and impracticable if we see in the Evangelist the original place of origin of a famous surname (its οἶκος) 117, which could remain unknown to descendants or be completely alien due to the absence of any everyday connections 118. By the nature of the census norms, we are obliged to interpret in their spirit the note about “our city”, that it was the one where this person had a clan settlement and where he had to go from his place of residence, even if it was more permanent, but not clan 119. Further we will only have to admit that Joseph, being a Bethlehemite by origin, for various reasons (for example, because of his craft) lived in Nazareth 120 and therefore was forced to go to Bethlehem for the census, because for the family of David there was the root of that branch to which the betrothed Mariin belonged (Luke 2:4). This interpretation is sufficiently supported by the Evangelist Matthew, who says (2:22–23) that Joseph wanted to return from Egypt to Bethlehem and, out of fear of Archelaus, chose Nazareth, of course, because the first was native to him and the second was not a stranger, and this is precisely what the third weather forecaster says. It is not particularly important that women were not subject to qualification both among the Jews 121 and among the Romans 122 . The question of Mary’s co-presence at the census is very special and very unclear to be resolved categorically and directly admit that she also went to be registered 123 and the born Infant of God was included in the census registration 124 . This is possible if the Ever-Virgin had independent property and was subject to the law of ἰδία. But it is no less likely that the Mother of God was taken in view of Her position, according to which it was inconvenient for Joseph to leave her alone in Nazareth 125. However, this is only a side circumstance that does not in the least affect the central point, that the census required reporting to the ancestral place of residence. This also eliminates indications of the insurmountable difficulty of implementing the proposed plan. According to the census order, only those who lived outside their permanent place of residence had to cross for the sake of it, and there were hardly a majority of those in Palestine. Then, it was obligatory to appear at the ancestral place of origin only if it was known and only for those who had an attaching ἰδία there, but this class cannot be considered numerous. On the contrary, all those who were torn away from the ancestral center, who lost contact with it due to the loss of ἰδία here and who acquired it in their location were undoubtedly registered in this latter. Then there will be no need for the imaginary great migration of the Jews 126, which among Luke’s critics reaches purely mythical grandeur, since almost all members of the diaspora 127 are forcibly attracted to this process, although often they had no attraction in Palestine except the temple of Jerusalem. Mass movements of Jews were not at all unusual and, for religious reasons, were carried out annually on a large scale from “all over the world.” But in our case, they were not required on such a large scale and were greatly facilitated, being prophesied for regularly occurring holiday trips, as scientists quite legitimately assume 128. IV. The connection between what is celebrated at St. Bows of qualification with Quirinius and the difficulties involved here. – Twice legateship of this dignitary in Syria and the assumption that the first time he was actually a military governor under another civilian (for example, called S. Saturninus by Tertullian); the relativity of this interpretation. – The possibility of Quiriniev’s legation in Syria around the birth of Christ and the admissibility of the simultaneous existence of two persons with this title (decessor and successor). – The reason for the Gospel mention is precisely Quirinius and the meaning of the entire chronological indication in the Gospels. Luke. – The reliability of the third Evangelist in general. We have achieved that, both in time and in form, in all typical details, the census mentioned by Luke is depicted as absolutely possible theoretically and in fact, and therefore should be considered to have actually happened on the basis of the direct and so far unshakable testimony of the third weather forecaster. Naturally, independent science, admitting the possibility of empire-wide census orders, accepts with certainty all the news of the Evangelist and confirms it in its entirety in the name of general historical observations and laws 129. The last question remains about the methods of concrete implementation of the intended census around the birth of Christ. This is the darkest point in the whole question, which from this side does not lend itself to a firm answer. But given the uniqueness of the surviving message, one can now neither expect nor demand complete validity and distinct clarity. Here only probability is desirable - and criticism itself, in order to save Luke, asks to prove at least the possibility that Quirinius under Herod c. was the governor of Syria and in such dignity carried out the census in Judea 130. Critical claims should not go beyond these limits, just as hypothetical answers will be limited by them. The difficulty arises from the fact that the census in question is associated with the Syrian hegemony of Quirinius, and it is known about him that he was such later, when he carried out the census after the overthrow of Archelaus. We will have to accept his early viceroyship. There are no actual obstacles to this, 131 and the first legateship of Quirinius in Syria has long been recognized. However, we must agree that this does not confirm the accuracy of Luke, who conceives the era of Herod in., meanwhile, a later time is assumed here no earlier than 3-2 AD. 132 It must be added that all this is allowed according to theoretical speculations, for nowhere is noted in the quarry of Quirinius, a titulus (lapis) Tiburtinus or an inscription discovered in 1764 near the city of Tivoli (Tibur) and with 1828, located in the Vatican, is fragmentary and has neither the name nor the dignity of the dignitary who secondly had a commanding connection with Syria (Divi Augusti iterum Syriam et Ph) 133. It is not indisputable that this evidence refers to Quirinius 134, for which it is necessary in advance and independently to allow his two-time Syrian governorship 135. But even then there is no chronological correspondence with Luke for 2-5 years - and the scientific acquisition turns into a new refutation of the Evangelist, since there is no place for the Quirinian hegemony in Syria around the birth of Christ. However, what is needed for business is not the governorship itself, but the right to carry out qualifications. The inextricable connection with them is not completely certain. This is true for both Josephus and the Evangelist Luke. The terminology of the first, generally imprecise and inconsistent 136, becomes downright vague when describing the Quirinian situation in Syria after Archelaus, as can be seen from the examples given above (on page 35). Of course, the functions acquired by Quirinius are reconciled with governorship and are feasible for him 137, but it is still extremely characteristic that the Jewish historian never uses the corresponding terms that were known to him and are used for other persons of this category 138. The general flavor of Josephus's speeches makes it clear that Quirinius was then the highest judge and special organizer of the regional qualifications. Here it is possible to deny that in the 6th year after the birth of Christ this dignitary was the Syrian legate 139, recognizing him as the census commissioner of Augustus 140. On the other hand, the Gospel ἠγεμονεύοντος is not absolutely decisive, for the word ἠγέμων is not quite definite in the later Greek language 141 and in Luke it is used about the authorities (Luke 21:12) or about Roman officials of various ranks - the procurators of Judea Pontius Pilate (Luke 20:20 and Wed. ΙΙΙ, 1: ἠγεμονεύοντος Ποντίου Πιλάτου τῆς Ἰουδαίας), Felix (Acts. 23:24, 26, 33; 24:1,10) and P. Feste (Acts 26:30), and ἠγεμονία is adopted by the emperor Tiberius (Luke 3:1). Therefore, there are no philological obstacles and the reign of Quirinius, called by St. Justin Martyr is only ἐπίτροπος 142, to be considered for the era of the Nativity of Christ not a viceroy 143, seeing here a special imperial commission 144, for example, like the one that the Jewish historian attributes to this person for the mission to depose Archelaus. Then it will be completely possible for the simultaneous presence in Syria of two unequal Roman representatives with the title ἠγέμων for both, as we see in Saturninus and Volumnius (Antiqu. XVI, 9:1; 10:8), although in fact the second was only a quaestor for the first 145. This is all the more possible for Quirinius because for the second time Coponius was with him (Antiqu. XVΙΙI, 1:1; 2:2), at the beginning, it seems, he was not yet the actual procurator of Judea, until its new relations were finally regulated. This, first of all, resolves the confusing conflict about the first Quirinian governorship, for which there is not enough time, if under Herod c. in the era of the birth of Christ, this high position was actually occupied by completely different people. From now on, this obstacle disappears by itself, because under the Syrian legate, other Roman dignitaries with deliberate functions of a fiscal nature are in every possible way allowed in the province, although censuses were usually carried out by governors 146 . Here there is scope for many possible constructions. From them, first of all, a natural assumption is put forward that around the birth of Christ Quirinius was an extraordinary financial commissioner for arranging a census under the legate Saturninus 147 or Varus 148. Even more interesting is the solid theory of Prof. V. M. Re'msay. Combining the news of Tacitus (Annal. IΙΙ, 48) and tituli Tiburtini, he thinks that Quirinius had special powers and, occupied with the highest operations in Cilicia against the rebellious tribe of the Homonadians (Omonads), ceded the internal government of Syria to a civil governor (Saturninus or Varus), and is called Luca because he ruled shorter, as an extraordinary legate 149 . This construction is not undermined in its essence when it changes in the sense that Quirinius ruled from the 11th year to the 8th and even until the 7th under the administrative legate of the Syrian Saturninus (in 9–6), why the census noted by the Evangelist was carried out under the second, but by the will of the first, who was distracted by military operations in Cilicia 150. These and similar assumptions, being historically permissible, 151 quite satisfactorily smooth out these difficulties and help in the happy reconciliation of contradictory evidence. Now Tertullian also harmoniously enters into the scientific combination with his singular opinion that et census constat actos sub Augusto nunc in Judaea per Sentium Saturninum, apud quos genus ejus (Jesu Christi) inquirere potuissent (Adversus Marcionem IV, 19). Prof. V. M. Ramsey, these data receive all the necessary weight and peacefully coexist with what is known about Quirinius: if the census was carried out by the power of the latter, but under the actual control of Saturninus, then it is not surprising that it could be designated by both names. So far, everything in the hypotheses presented is plausible, safe and successful, but they are far from indisputable. The authority of the Carthaginian presbyter is exaggerated unnecessarily 152 and is not at all unconditional 153 . Of course, it is supported by a reference (Adv. Marcionem IV, 7) to the “Roman archives,” but Tertullian hardly saw them, if we mean (by the natural character of the phrase) the state repositories in Rome. True, there are no handwritten hesitations in the title of the Syrian legate, which is how Sentius Saturninus is written everywhere, but the same is true for the obviously meaningless nunc, which, without any textual support, is usually corrected to tunc 154. Tertullian also has a factual inconsistency, since he dates the Nativity of Christ to the 8th year ante Chr. 155, although this in no way coincides with the governorship of S. Saturninus and is in fact erroneous 156. And the design of Prof. V. M. Ramsey is not free from defects and objections 157. In its original form, it remains unclear why the civilian function of census registration fell into military hands, especially to such a dignitary who was completely absorbed in military duties and diverted by them far from the census area. If the reason for this was the inability and unreliability of the civil legate, then in every possible way it would be more rational to remove him and replace him with a new authorized person. It was more convenient to entrust military tasks in Cilicia to a special commander, although it must be added that the campaign of Quirinius against the Homonadens is spoken of by Tacitus (Annal. III, 48) without any relation to his Syrian governorship, completely unknown to the Roman historian, which is why this combination of prof. V. M. Re'msay. And in his latest construction, which also suffers from the shortcomings of the previous one, he introduces a completely unnatural division of a single viceroyal power between two persons 158. Finally, according to the original Gospel text of Luke, we do not exclude at all that Quirinius is given the dignity of a legate. The verb ἠγεμονεύειν, of course, does not have strict technical distinctness and can be applied to government authorities from a rather modest procurator to the supreme emperor. However, it follows precisely from this that the immediate meaning of the term is determined by the nature of each particular case. According to this, only imperium 159 is permissible for Caesar Tiberius, and in Palestine after Archelaus only procurators are possible. This scale is also necessary for the analyzed gospel testimony. It categorically states the state-authoritative attitude towards Syria as the Roman province of Augusta, but in such a combination the only governors are conceivable here. The immediate energy of the Gospel phrase rather states that Quirinius, in connection with the Nativity of Christ, is depicted in Luke as a Syrian legate. From this point you need to set off in further searches. This is where a great obstacle arises before us in the absence of a place for Quirinius’s legation in Syria for the era of interest to us, which extends until the birth of Christ during the life of Herod, who died in March-April 750 (4 ante Chr.), starting from the 11th–10th ante Chr. During this period, we are well aware by name of the Syrian governors sufficient to fill it completely. These are: M. Titius around 10 (between 742 and 750 a C. U.), S. Sentius Saturninus 9–6. (in 744 or 746–748 a S. U.), R. Quintilius Varus 6–4, even–3. (until the fall of 750?). It seems to be completely difficult to squeeze our Publius Sulpicius Quirinius here, and for his first legation the time is given no earlier than 3-2 years, without finding another free chronological point for him 160. But in fact, even in the early one there is no all-exclusive tightness. M. Titius is mentioned by Josephus (Antiqu. XVI, 8:6) as the governor of Syria (τόν ἠγεμόνα Συρίας Τίτιον) before Herod's third journey to. to Rome, and this very event is only guesstimately placed around the year 10 and does not at all provide solid support for calculating the change of Syrian legates 161. Here the 10th year is all the more doubtful because it is very unclear how long before Herod’s departure. was a circumstance noted by the Jewish historian. It is true that M. Titius was in office after M. Agrippa, but it cannot be said that this was directly, and for the viceroyalty of the second person the years 23–21 and 17–13 are not entirely indisputably called. The beginning of the reign of the next legate is no less shrouded in fog. Josephus says (Antiqu. XVI, 9:6) the only thing is that upon his return from Rome Herod c. had relations with the imperial governors Saturninus and Volumnius, and whether the first directly succeeded M. Titius and when exactly this was, we do not know at all. Therefore, the entry into the Syrian legate of Sentius Saturninus is again found only by probable calculations 162 and is sometimes attached even to the 10th year 163, which plays some purely mystical role, being assimilated by dignitaries of different times. More emphatically attested (Antiqu. XVII, 5:2), that Saturninus should be successively followed (διαδόχος μέν Σατορνίῳ) by Quintilius Varus, who was legate from the year 6, judging by the dates of the coins. So, for the period from the 13th to the 6th year of 7–8 years, we have two persons, but this is hardly enough, even if for their reign we accept the norm indicated to Augustus Maecenas (in Dio Cass. LII, 23) no more than 5 and no less than 3 years (καί ἀρχέωσαν μήτε ἔλαττον ἐτῶν τριῶν, εἰ μή τις ἀδικήσειέ τι, μήτε πλεῖον πέντε), Moreover, in the imperial provinces, governors were appointed and dismissed at the sole discretion of the Caesars without any deadlines 164. Under all the conditions described, it is quite possible to move the hegemony of Titius to the 13th year, and bring Saturninovo closer to the 6th - and then there will be enough free space in the interval of 10-8 years, where theoretically the Nativity of Christ under Quirinius can be timed. And later, it is not at all absolutely certain that Varus directly replaced Saturninus 165, although this is stated by Josephus. Now we get some place for Quirinius’s legation, but other combinations are being found for it, where the data of Tertullian are also reconciled. The Syrian rulers alternated, of course, not with a mechanical succession of directly following one another. The new legate did not always appear in his province immediately and did not remain there all the time. The predecessor of the Titsius, M. Agrippa, covers the period 23–13, but was not only in Syria, but also in the East for at least 10 years and was absent even when Augustus was there for two whole years. Of course, the province was not left without any government supervision, and it was carried out by special deputy legates 166. In this case, why could it not be that under the legate Quirinius there was an adjutor in the person of Saturninus, who then followed him 167? A striking analogy is that under Saturninus there was Volumnius, and both of them were equally called hegemons 168. Naturally, in this case, a well-known event could be defined by both names - and in Luke the birth of Christ is attributed to Quirinius, in Tertullian to Saturninus. It is no less true that the new governor did not immediately replace the previous one - and there would be a break in the administration of an extremely important and responsible position if absolute vacancy were practiced. Obviously, the performance of viceroyal duties continued with the authority necessary for the administrative dominance of Rome in the outlying region, and this dignity is conceivable only in the former legate, for whom it was most natural and proper to carry out viceroyal functions and be the actual ruler. And this dual power could not be short-lived at all, for the new legates were in no hurry to leave Rome, just as the old ones were not particularly interested in striving for a speedy liberation from the influential and profitable advantages of viceroyalty. From this side, the witty interpretation († November 3, 1875) of Professor M. is little appreciated, but very reasonable. Aberle that during the census noted by Luke there were two hegemons - a retired decessor and an appointed successor 169. The details of this theory are controversial in terms of development and application, but the main idea deserves full scientific attention, because historically it is completely plausible, and turns out to be actually suitable under the conditions of that time, and for our problem it represents a successful solution. Theoretically, science is in no way obliged to reject this reconstruction and - rather - should accept it, even if criticism projects that with the supposed census of 4 years BC. Chr. not only were there, but actually there were two legates together in Syria - the replaceable Varus and Sabinus, who had not yet taken office (Bell. jud. II, 2: 2-5. Antiqu. XVII, 9: 3-10: 9), who is identical with Quirinius, named incorrectly by Josephus by mistake 170. Against the combination of prof. M. Aberle object that it would be strange to name a legal dignitary, forgetting the actual organizer of the qualification 171, but there is nothing incredible or impracticable in this. Examples of this kind are found in our times with similar results. Bishops in our church always arrive at their sees with no delay, and dioceses are sometimes in charge of temporarily governing hierarchs (for example, from local vicars). It is hardly fair to dispute that the events that happened during this period can be designated by one or another person, without violating or damaging the historical truth. Since the matter is being conducted under the rule of one with the participation of the other, then historical memory is free and legitimate to preserve both names. And this is all the more permissible because ruling bishops sometimes (even if due to death) do not enter their cathedra at all, where they are legally registered, while in fact a temporarily replacing hierarch gives orders. It is impossible to silence the first, but it is difficult to forget the second, which is why they both can be mentioned with equal right. The same is conceivable for Quirinius and Saturninus in relation to the census under discussion, since it is quite possible that both of them came into contact with it. Further, the only relevant question is why Luke chose the first and not the second. In the absence of factual materials, we are forced to make probable guesses, using suggestive hints for them. From this point of view, the previously revealed circumstance is highly important: the Evangelist, qualifying the Quirinian census as the first, clearly hints at the second and refers to it. This other one will also be Quirinian, for with the difference in the performers, they would be separated by them, and not by ordinal count. Two censuses of Quirinius are obtained, and from them St. Luke deliberately singles out the first one in the Gospel, of course, to distinguish it from the later one, since they were easily confused with the identity of the dignitary, the subject and the place of action. Then the whole strength of the Gospel mention lies in the exact chronological delimitation of two similar qualifications, of which the first could hold out and go as Quirinius due to one way or another of the given legate being in contact with it. Here it is natural and understandable that the synoptic text puts forward this name. The latter seems to be only an accepted nickname for the census and is not at all connected by such continuity, as if it all took place under this person. The census operation in Syria was not carried out with particular speed and had a certain duration, including general organization throughout the province, its adaptation to different parts and actual execution 172. Equal successive legates could have participated in this process, and therefore it does not follow from anywhere that the analyzed census was both begun and completed during the hegemony of Quirinius alone. Along with him, other ranks are acceptable, at least in the form of Sentius Saturninus 173 mentioned by Tertullian. Luke does not say at all that the census was completed at once 174, and for the essence of the Gospel testimony it is quite enough that the first census was called Quirinius and could cause confusion with the later one, but this is exactly what happened if at some point (for example, at the beginning or end) it especially came into contact with the legate Quirinius and was therefore designated by him, although it was not entirely completed by him 175. This is where misunderstandings arose and for which warning remarks are appropriate in a serious historical narrative. This is how the Evangelist’s mention of Quirinius, once and genit, is satisfactorily revealed. absol Bow. 2:2 gives only a general indication of the time of the census, and not the actual performer of it 176. And one cannot object that then the Gospel instruction loses its chronological meaning, since it will determine the event of the Nativity of Christ by a not entirely simultaneous moment. But the third forecaster does not at all see here a special or predominant desire for precise chronological dating, for which hegemony would not be suitable due to its very duration of several years, where the census could be in different years. There is a stronger tendency to distinguish between two similar phenomena, and from this side Luke’s news has all the valuable importance in eliminating the very possibility of their confusion by readers. As a result, we find that the note about the hegemony of Quirinius allows for sufficient historical interpretation, without forcing idle guesswork 177 or arbitrary proofreading of the Gospel text 178, which is still being drafted by different authors. We should not demand too much from St. Luke in his general chronological mention. It must be agreed that it - in itself - does not contain the most precise chronological indication and, perhaps, does not pursue it. Therefore, it is impossible here to achieve punctual clarity regarding the immediate conditions for the fulfillment of the first Quirinius census 179, and wider coverage is also impossible for now due to the lack of detailed information about the life and career of Quirinius. Until we learn better and in more detail on this subject, until then the Gospel words about the named dignitary are not and should not serve as a basis for calculating the very year of the Nativity of Christ. However, throughout the entire narrative, they have serious significance and do not encounter direct contradiction in other historical data, just as all other details of the synoptic abstract are sufficiently consistent with them. There are no reasonable grounds for unaccountably trusting the Jewish chronicler 180 and biasedly finding fault with the New Testament historian 181 . Then, in the end, a very significant fundamental result is formulated that the note about the Quirinian census in connection with the birth of Christ, being accurate 182, not only does not undermine the authority of St. Luke does not cast a shadow on him, but perfectly confirms the high historical dignity of the richness and reliability of the entire sacred narrative of the third Gospel 1913, III, 17th Sunday. So prof. Gr. E. Zenger, The Jewish Question in Ancient Rome in “Warsaw University News” No. 6 for 1889 and separately, Warsaw 1889, p. 126 note. See Rev. Septimus Buss, Roman Law and History in the New Testament (London 1901), p. 18, 21. This is expressed by † Prof. Emil Schurer in Theologische Literaturzeitung 1883, Nr. 21, Sp 481 Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam, in prolog. 4, 7; Migne lat. XV, col. 1530, 1532. Therefore, only the latest literature is used, but the previous literature, which has already been assessed and used by Prof. M.D. Muretov. Census of people during the era of the birth of the Lord in “Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers” for 1884, volume ΧΧΧΙV, pp. 565–653, and prof. M.I. Theological, The Childhood of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Forerunner, according to the Gospels of St. Apostles Matthew and Luke (Kazan 1893), pp. 319–343. So Prof. D.Dr. Theodor Zahn. Das syrische Statthalterschaft und die Schatzung des Quirinius in Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift IV (1893), 8, S. 644 ff; Kommentar zum Neuen Teatament herausg. von Prof Th. Zahn, Band III: Das Evangelium des Lucas ausgelegt von Th. Zahn, erste Hälfte (Leipzig 1913), pp. 130–131; Einleitung in das Neue Testament II (Leipzig 3 1907), S. 402. Prof. Th. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Lucas ausgelegt I, S. 124. Prof. Th. Zahn in “Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift” IV (1893), 8, S. 651 and in Einleitung in das Neue Testament 3 II, S. 403. Essentially similar to Prof. Friedrich Spitta, Die chronologische Notizen und die Hymnen in Lc 1 u. 2, that Josephus also got it wrong (see “Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft” VII (1906), 4, S.293–296), for the Quirinian census was not during his lifetime (S. 293), but after the death of Herod c. (S. 295 ff.), when he embraced all the possessions (πᾶσα ή οἰκουμένη) of him (S. 293–294). So Rev. Prof Kirsopp Lake (The Date Herod’s Marriage wi th.Herodias, and the Chronology of the Gospels in “The Expositor” 1912, XI, p. 475, 476), for the marriage of Herod with Herodias was (according to the instructions of Josephus) in 34-35 (p. 463), which is why the crucifixion will take place in 35-36 g. (p. 467). See N. Lecoultre, De censu Quiriniano et anno nativitatis Christi secundum Lucam evangelistam (Lausanne 1883), p. 87–89, and cp. in Max Krenkel, Josephus und Lucas: der schriftstellerische Einfluss des judischen Geschichtschreibers auf den christlichen (Leipzig 1894), S. 70. That's what Prof does. Friedrich Spitta in "Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft" VII (1906), 4, S. 292. See N. Lecoultre, De censu Quiriniano, p. 53, 55 sqq. Cm. R.P.Fr. M. – J. Lagrange, Ou en est la question de la recensement de Quirinius? in Revue biblique international, nouvelle serie VIII: 1 Janvier 1911, p. 65, 77. See, for example, Joachim Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Band II, zweite Auflage, besorgt von H. Dessau und A. v. Domaszewski (Leipzig 1884), S. 211 Anm., 219; V. Hardthausen, Augustus und seine Zeit, erster Theil, zweiter Band (Leipzig 1896), S. 922; Prof. Kubitschek, Art. "Census" in P a u 1 y s Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, neue Bearbeitung heausg. von Prof. Georg Wissowa, Band III, 2 (Stuttgart 1899), Sp. 1919; Max Krenkel, Josephus und Lucas, S. 64–75; Prof D. Oscar Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte (Tübingen 2 1906), pp. 119–120; S. G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels edited with an Introduction and a Commentary, together with a Series of Additional Notes by l. Abrahams, vol II (London 1909), p. 857–859. Prof. Theodor Mommsen says (Res gestae divi Ahgusti Berolini 2 1883, p. 176) about Luke that he is “Josephum male compilavit.” Similar to this is Rev. Joseph Horner that the commandment of Caesar was published in 5 BC. Chr., and the census itself was carried out by Quirinius later - not only after the death of Herod, but also after the exile of Archelaus (The Gospels of Matthew and Luke: a Vindication of their Agreement and Accuracy as to Certain Dates and Order of Events, Pittsburg 1907, p. 32, 35, 38). Wed. Prof. Th. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Lucas ausgelegt I, S. 123, 124. The interpretation of Dr. Alfons Mayer. (Die Schatzung bei Christi Geburt in ihrer Beziehung zu Quirinins: historisch – kritische Studie zu Lukas 2, 2, Innsbruck 1908, S. 13), supposedly the Gospel text expresses that “of those (many) censuses that were carried out by virtue of the command of Augustus, the first was the one that was carried out under Quirinia. See Prof. Th. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Lucas ausge egt I, S. 124. See also K. T. Turner in the published book: Chronology of the Old and New Testaments (Kiev 1911), pp. 37–38. See also N. Lecoultre, De censu Quiriniano, p. 24. So does R.P.Fr. M.–J. Lagrange in "Revue biblique internationale", nouvelle serie VIII: 1 Janvier 1911, p. 80 ss. In essence, † Prof. argues similarly. Dr. F. Godet that Luke 2:2 is only an interpolated remark about the first Quirinian census to distinguish it from the one at the birth of Christ, so that it is not confused with the later census, as it is better known (Kommentar zu dem Evangelium des Lucas, deutsch bearbeitet von E. R. Wunderlich und K. Wunderlich, zweite Aufl., Hannover 1890, S. 89–90). See R. S. Bour, L'inscription de Quirinius, et le recensement de S. Luc (Rome 1897), p. 33–34. Wed. R.S. Bour, L'inscription de Qurinius, p. 33 and 44. See R. S. Bour, L'inscription de Quirinius, p. 33 and even Max Krenkel, Josephus und Lucas, S. 74. Cp. else † Prof. Dr. F. Godet, Kommentar zu dem Evangelium des Lukas, S. 2 87–88; Rev. Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke (Edinburgh 1896), p. 50. V. Garthausen, Augustus und seine Zeit I, 2, S. 923; † Prof Th. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, zw. Band, 1 Abtheilung (Leipzig 3 1887), S. 417. Prof. W. William Sanday, Art. "Jesus Christ" in A Dictionary of the Bible ed. by James Hastings, vol. II (Edinburgh 1902), p, 646a. Prof. Sir W. M. Ramsay, Luke's Narrative of Christ in The Expositor 1912, XI, p. 387. Prof. W. M. Ramsay. Was Christ born at Bethlehem? A Study on the Credibility of St. Luke. London 1898. P. 49. † Prof. Dr. Moritz von Aberle in "Theologische Quartalschrift" 1874, IV, S. 663. V. Gardthausen, Augustus und seine Zeit I, 2, S. 913: “eine allgemeine Schatzung oder Volkszählung war für die Constituirung der Kaiserreiches ebenso dringendes Bedürfniss wie für die Republik und das Königthum, wenn auch die Verhältnisse sich wesentlich verändert haften.” Kubitschek y P aul y – W i s s o v a, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft III, 2, Sp. 1918; Joachim Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung 2 II, S. 212 ff; H. Lecoultre, De censu Quiriniano, p. 31; Prof. Horazio Marucchi, Art. "Cyrinus" in Dictionnaire de la Bible publie par F. Vigouroux, vol. II (Paris 1899), col. 1188–1189; † Josephus Knabenbauer, Evangelium secundum Lucam (Parisiis 2 1905), p. 108–110. Cp. still with prof. M.I. Rostovtseva, History of state farming in the Roman Empire (St. Petersburg 1899), p. 105, as well as in P. Willems, Roman state law (translated) edited by P. N. Bodyansky), vol. ΙΙ (Kiev 1890), p. 441. Joachim Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung 2 ΙΙ, S. 212 ff.; H. Lecoultre, De censu Quiriniano, p. 33; Rev. Septimus Buss, Roman Law and History in the New Testament, p. 25 sqq. On the significance of the act of January 13, 27 (727 a S. U.), see prof. E. D. Grimma, Studies on the history of the development of Roman imperial power, vol. I: Roman imperial power from Augustus to Nero (St. Petersburg 1900), pp. 91 pp., 243–244. Prof. W. M. Ramsay: Was Christ born at Bethlehem? p. 140 and in The Expositor 1912, XI, p. 395; Prof. J. Rendel Harris, The Present State of the Controversy over the Place and Time of the Birth of Christ in The Expositor 1908, III, p. 217. About the powers of Augustus by virtue of the tribunician power received in 23, see prof. E. D. Grimma, Studies on the history of the development of Roman imperial power I, pp. 130 ff., 244. Joachim Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung 2 I1, S. 214. See and Rev. Alfred Plummer, A Critical und Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke, p. 47. Rev. Alfred Plummer, A Critical und Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke, p. 47. Prof. W. M. Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? p. 123–124. Dr. Alfons Mayer, Die Schatung bei Christi Geburt in ihrer Beziehung zu Quirinius, S. 11. See also Joachim Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung 2 II, S. 211 Anm. So Joachim Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung 2 11, S. 211 Anm. Cm. † Prof. Emil Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, dritte und vierte Aufl, I Band (Leipzig 1901), S. 519; Dr. Alfons Mayer, Die Schatzung bei Christi Geburt, S. 11; Prof. W. M. Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? p. 119. So Prof. Fr. Spitta in "Zettischrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft" VII (1906), 4, S. 293–294; cp. and Max Krenkel, Josephus und Lucas, S. 67 See also † Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes 4 I, S. 523, 55. Dr. Alfons Mayer, Die Schatzung bei Christi Geburt, S. 8. Cm. Prof. Dr. Joseph Felten, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte oder Judentum und Heidentum zur Zeit Christi und der Apostel II (Regensburg 1910), pp. 289–290. See also prof. E. D. Grimm, Studies on the history of the development of Roman imperial power 1, p. 219 ff. V. Gardthausen, Augustus und seine Zeit I, 2, S. 923 R. S. Bour, L'inscription de Quirinius et le recensement de S. Luc, p. 51–52, 37–39; H. Lecoultre, De censu Quiriniano, p. 54. Joachim Marquardt, Römische Staatsvenvaltung 2 II, S. 217, 212 ff. † Prof. E. Schürer: Geschichte lies jüdischen Volkes 4 I, S. 525 ff. and in Theologische Literaturzeitung 1899, Nr. 25, Sp. 679; Prof. Fr. Spitta in "Zeitschrift für die neutestamtliche Wissenschaft" VII (1906), 4, S. 292; Rev. Joseph Horner, The Gospels of Matthew and Luke, p. 22–23; prof. Gr. E. Zenger, The Jewish Question in Ancient Rome, pp. 125, 1. H. Lecoultre, De censu Quiriniano, p. 82, 84. † Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes 4 I, S. 528. So, for example, and † Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes 4 I, S. 401 ff. See † Prof. Dr. Moritz von Aberle in “Theologische Quartalschrift” 1874, IV, S. 671. Prof Dr. Ludwig Hahn, Rom und Romanismus in griechisch – römischen Osten mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Sprache (bis auf die Zeit Hadrians), Leipzig 1906, S. 90. Prof. Dr. Joseph Felten, Neutestamentliche Zeitgechichte I, pp. 137–139. It is even said that “Herod became Octavian’s most faithful slave, knew no bounds in pleasing him and worshiped him as a god,” in fact, “he was not a king, but a Roman executioner in Judea” (Prof. Ya. A. Bogorodsky, About Herod the so-called Great in “Orthodox Interlocutor” 1896, part 1, p. 507, 518 and separately, Kazan 1896, pp. 13, 24), but here is an extreme exaggeration of undoubted reality. † Prof. Dr. Moritz von Aberle in "Theologische Quartalschrift" 1874, VI, S. 668 ff: † Prof. Dr. Paul Schanz, Commentar liber das Evangelium des heiligen Lucas (Tübingen 1883), S. 120; †Josephus Knabenbauer. Evangelium secundum Lucam, p. 2 111–112. These conditions are exaggerated to the recognition of the independence of Judea from Syria (in Henri Begnoult, Une province procuratorienne au debut I'empire Romain. Le proces de Jesus-Christ. Paris 1909. P. 45), and the first was organized supposedly identical to Egypt (p. 46 ss.). See † Prof. Dr. Moritz von Aberle in "Theologische Quartalschrift" 1874, IV, S. 673–674. See Lic. Dr. Wandel, Der römische Statthalter C. Sentius Saturninus in "Studien und Kritiken" 1892, I, S. 129; R.P.Fr. M.-J. Lagrange in “Revue biblique internationale”, nouvelle serie VIII: 1 Janvier 1911, p. 68–70. R. S. Bour, L'inscription de Quirinius et le recensement de S. Luc, p. 22–24; Rev. Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke, p. 48–49, 50. H. Lecoultre, De censu Quiriniano, p. 54. Prof. Gr. E. Zenger, The Jewish Question in Ancient Rome, pp. 127–128 approx. So † Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes 4 I, S. 403 n. Aum. 110. See Prof. Dr. Joseph Felten, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte I, S. 138, and † Josephus Kndbenbauer, Evangelium secundum Lucam, p. 2 113; cp. Rev. Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke, p. 48, 49. Arthur Pollok Sym, Art. "Census" in A Dictionary of Christ, and the Gospels ed. by J. Hastings I (Edinburgh 1906), p. 275a Cm. Liс, Dr. Wandel in "Studien und Kritiken" 1892, I, 8. 136 So does † Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes 4 I S. 544–549. Cp. on this issue from Prof. M. D. Muretova, Josephus and his testimony about Christ in the “Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia”, vol. VII, ed. edited by prof. N. N. Glubokovsky (St. Petersburg, I906), stlb. 367–378. See prof. N. N. Glubokovsky, The Gospel of St. Apostle Paul according to his origin and essence, book Ι (St. Petersburg 1905), pp. VI II, 18, book. II (St. Petersburg 1910), pp. 36, 989, 997, 116, 1077, 1276. See prof. N. N. Glubokovsky, The Good News of St. Apostle Paul according to his origin and essence, book. I, pp. XXVI, 148 ff.; book II, pp. 84, 808 and approx. 1259, 853, 142, 1274–1275. See prof. N. N. Glubokovsky ibid. II, pp. 84, 178, 428. Wed. and Rudolf Leszynsky, Die Sadduzäer (Berlin 1912), S. 15 ff. Cp. Henri Regnoult, Une province procuratorienne au debut de 1'empire Romain, p. 37. Cp. Lic. Dr. Wandel in "Studien und Kritiken" 1882, I, S. 127. † Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes 4 I, S. 84, 531. † Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes 4 I, S. 84, 531, as well as Prof. M. D. Muretov in “Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers” 1884, part XXXIV, p. 615. † Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes 4 I, S. 542. See Liс. Dr. Wandel in "Studien und Kritiken" 1892, I, S. 126–127. Liс. Dr. Wandel in "Studien und Kritiken" 1892, I, S. 128, and † Prof. Dr. Moritz von Aberle in "Theologische Quartalschrift" 1874, IV, S. 682. See † Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes 4 I, S. 514–516; Prof. J. Rendel Harris in The Expositor 1908, III, p. 216 sqq.; Rev. James Hope Moulton and Rev. George Milligan in "The Expositor" 1910, III, p. 288 and especially Selections from the Greek Papyri, edited with Translations and Notes by G. Milligan (Cambridge 1910), p. 445 sqq.; Prof. Dr. Joseph Felten, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte I, S. 139. Cf. and Prof. A.M. Pridika, Greek papyri in the Warsaw University News, 1907, book. ΙII-IV, and separately (Warsaw 1907), pp. 38–39. Wed. and Prof. W.M. Ramsay in "The Expositor" 1912, XI, b. 395. Prof. W.M. Ramsay Was Christ born at Bethlehem? p. 158, 191, 198, 215. So now Hans-Hermann Kritzinger, Der Stern der Weisen eine astronomisch-kritische Studie mit einem Geleitwort von D. Wi 1 helm Faber (Gütersloh 1911), S. 98, 101 ff. Similar and † prof. A. A. Nekrasov, who dates the birth of Christ to the year 748 (Reading the Greek text of the Holy Gospels, Kazan 1888, pp. 19, 94), and the death of Herod c. puts it in the year 750 (pp. 17, 95 ff., 119 ff., 128 ff.). Dr. theol. Carl Mommert, Zur Chronologie des Lebens Jesu (Leipzig 1909), S. 195; Prof. D.Dr. Heinrich G. Voigt, Die Geschichte Jesu und die Astrologie: eine religionsgeschichtliche und chronologische Untersuchung zu der Erzählung von den Weisen aus dem Morgenland (Leipzig 1911), S. 136 ff., - and from the older ones see Henry Browne, Ordo saeclorum: a Treatise on the Chronology of the Holy Scriptures (London 1844), p. 46, 47 and cp. article Patristic Evidence and the Gospel Chronology in The Church Quarterly Review XXXIII, 66 (January 1892), p. 411 Cm. Prof. Dr. Franz X. Steinmetzer, Ein neuer Weg zur Bestimmung des Geburtsdatums Christi? in “Theologische Quartalschrift” 1912 IV, S. 497–511, where the author leans more towards Kritzinger’s side than Voigt’s, but considers both solutions equally probable (S. 506, 507–508). Cp. his brochure Der Stern von Bethlehem in Biblische Zeitfragen herausg. von Prof. Dr. P. Heinisch und Prof. Dr. Ignaz Rohr, VI-te Folge, Heft 3, Münster in Westfalen 1913 (S. 17–18, 27). Wm. Weber, Der Census des Quirinius nach Josephus in "Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft" X (1909), 4, S. 319. Pfarrer J. van Bebber, Zur Chronologie des Lebens Jesu: eine exegetische Studie (Münster i. W. 1898), S. 137, 143, 130. Lieut.-Col. G. Mackinlay, The Magi: How They Recognized Christ's Star (London 1907), p. 135 sqq., 161, 168, 177. Prof. W. M. Ramsay in G. Mackinlay, The Magi, p. IX–X. Prof. W. M. Ramsay in The Expositor 1912, XI, p. 395. See and † Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes 4 I, S. 516–517. So † Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes 4 I, S. 517. Henri Regnoult, Une province procuratorienne au debut de l’em – pire Romain, p. 40, and also see above on pp. 22–23. See Lic. Dr. Wandel in "Studien und Kritiken" 1892, I, S. 131. Joachim Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung 2 II, S. 21Z 7 ; † Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes 4 I, S. 516. Liс. Dr. Wandel in "Studien und Kritiken" 1892, I, S. 130–134. See also above on page 5 note. Contrary to those who dispute this, such as N. Lecoultre, Decensu Quiriniano, p. 52, 97. See about this Prof. Horazio Marucchi y F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible II, col. 1187; R. S. Bour, L'inscription de Quirinius et le recensement de S. Luc, p. 35–36; Prof. Th. Zahn in "Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift" VI (1893), 8, S. 647–649, and Einleitung in das Neue Testament 3 II (Leipzig 1907), S. 131. Kubitschek y Paul y-W i s s o w a, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft III, 2, Sp. 1921. Prof. Percy Gardner, Art. "Quirinius" in Encyclopaedia Biblica ed. by the Rev. Prof. T. K. Cheyne, vol. IV (London 1903), col. 3396. Cm Prof. W. M. Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? p. 108, 185 sqq.; Rev. Septimus Buss, Roman Law and History in the New Testament, p. 31, 33; A. P. Sym in A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels p. Ι, 275 b, and Rev. F. R. Montgomery ibid. I, p. 410; R. S. Bour, L'inscription de Quirinius et le recensement de S. Luc, p. 21, 24, 25–26; G. Mackinlay, The Magi, p. 170–171. See also H. Lecoultre, De censu Quiriniano, p. 58. So does R.R. Fr. M.–J. Lagrange in "Revue biblique interuationale", nouvella serie VIII: 1 Janvier 1911, p. 62. Prof. W. M. Ramsay in The Expositor 1912, XI, p. 487. Prof. W. M. Ramsay in The Expositor 1912, XI, p. 487–488. Prof. W. M. Ramsay in The Expositor 1912, XI, p. 393. This is the proper meaning of ἀπογράφομαι: see Rev. Prof. J. N. Moulton and Rev. George Milligan in The Expositor 1908, VII, p. 93. Greek Papyri in the British Museum: Catalog with Texts ed. by F. G. Kenyon and H. J. Bell, vol. III (London 1907), p. 124–126, and Rev. George Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri, p. 72–73, as well as in The Journal of Theological Studies IX, 35 (April, 1908) p. 466; Rev. Prof. J. H. Moulton in The Expository Times XIX, 1 (October 1907), p. 40–41; † Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes 4 I, S. 514 ff.; Prof. M. Rostowsew, Studien zur Geschichte des römischen Kolonates in erstes Beiheft zum Arhiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete herausg. von Prof. Ulrich Wilken (Leipzig und Berlin 1910) S. 209–210. See F. De Zalueta, Patronage in the Later Empire: De Patrociniis vicorum in Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed. by P. Vinogradoff, vol. I (Oxford 1909), p. 42–43. Prof. M. Rostowsew, Studien zur Geschichte des römischen Kolonates, S. 205. Prof. M. I. Rostovtsev ibid., S. 307–308. So † Prof. E. Schürer in Theologische Literaturzeitung 1907, Nr. 27, Sp. 683–684. So prof. G. E. Zenger, The Jewish Question in Ancient Rome, pp. 127, 1. † Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes 4 Ι, S. 519. See Prof. about this. Th. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Lucas ausgelegt I, S. 126. Cp. Liс. Dr. Wandel in "Studien und Kritiken" 1892, I, S. 137. If prof. Gr. E. Zenger for Onion. 2:3 the text prefers the critically more authenticated reading of εἰς τήν έαυτοῦ πόλιν. rec. εἰς τήν ἰδίαν πόλιν (The Jewish Question in Ancient Rome, p. 127, 1), then according to Mo. ΙΙΙ, 1 Capernaum was just as “own” for Jesus Christ, for He lived there (Matt. IV, 13. Mark 2:1). This means that in Luke. 2:3, of course, a city that was “own” for everyone for one reason or another (cf. N. Lecoultre, De censu Quiriniano, p. 14–15). We must also remember that in the New Testament ἴδιος (and even ό ἴδιος) often equals birth. pad. reflexive pronoun and completely replaces it, having exactly the same energy: see W.N. Weeda, Neu hebben de Statenvertalers het adjectivum ἴδιος in het Nieuwe Testament overgezet? in "Theo (ogische Studien" 1912, VI, bl. 416–427; cp. "Biblische Zeitschrift" XI (1913), 2, S. 191. So already St. Justin M. in Dialog, p. Tryph. 78 (Migne gr. VI, col. 657): Κυρηνίου, άνεληλύθει (Ἰωσὴφ) άπο Ναζαρέτ, ἔνθα ᾦκοι, εἰς Βηθλεέμ, ὅθεν ᾖν, ἀπογράψασθαι. H. Lecoultre, De censu Quiriniano, p. 59. Cm. and Prof. Percy Gardner in Encyclopaedia Biblica ed. by the Rev. Prof. T. K. Cheyne, vol. IV, col. 3995. See also Tertulliani Adversus Judaeos IX (Migne lat. II, col. 624). Fuit enim de patria Bethlehem et de domo David, sicut apud Romanos in censu descripta est Maria, ex qua nascitur Christus. Thus R. S. Bour, L’inscription de Quirinius et le recensement de S. Luc, p. 26. The latter opinion is now defended by Prof. Th. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Lucas ausgelegt I, pp. 127–129. H. Lecoultre, De censu Quiriniano, p. 58. Prof. Gr. E. Zenger, The Jewish Question in Ancient Rome, p. 127. According to J. von Bebber, Jesus Christ was born on Nisan 10 (April 12 or 13) 744 (Zur Chronologie des Lebens Jesu, S. 130, 137, 143), t. e. around Easter; by Prof. W. M. Ramsay, it was in October 8, in the fall, around the Feast of Tabernacles (see “The Expositor” 1912, XI, p. 386; XII, p. 502); G. Maskinlau attributed this event to the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles in the year 8, i.e., September 20 (The Magi, p. 177), Wm. Weber puts the qualification between Easter and Pentecost at 4 years (see “Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft” X [1909], 4, S. 313 ff., 318), thinking that the Savior was born around the second of the named holidays (S, 319). See Prof. M. Rostowzew, Studien zur Geschichte des römischen Kolonates, S. 211, 305. So † Prof.E. Schürer in Theologische Literaturzeitung 1899 Nr. 25, Sp. 679. Cm. Prof. W. M. Ramsay in The Expositor 1912, XI, p. 399 sqq. Cm. † Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes 4 l, S. 538. See about this Prof. Horazio Marucchi in F. V igouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible II, col. 1187–1188; Prof. W. M. Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? p. 227 sqq., 273; R. S. Bour, L'inscription de Quirinius et e recensement de S. Luc, p. 3 ss., 11–19, 53–54. Cm. Prof. Dr. Joseph Felten, Neutestamentliche Zeitgesehichte 1, S. 143, 2. †Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes 4 I, S. 324. See † Prof. Dr. Moritz von Aberle, Exegetische Studien, 3: Ueber den Statthalter Quirinius in "Theologische Quartalschrift" 1868, I, S. 42; R. S. Bour, L'inscription de Quirinius et le recensement de S. Luc, p. 16. R. S. Bour, L'inscription de Quirinius et le recensement de S. Luc, p. 15–16; † Prof. Paul Schanz. Commentar über das Evangelium des heiligen Lucas, S. 121. Antiqu. XVΙ, 8: 6 fin. See also below on page 46. See † Prof. Moritz von Aberle, Uber den Statthalter Quirinius in Theologische Quartalschrift 1865, I, S. 104 ff., 114, 118, 123. † Prof. M.v. Aberle in "Theologische Quartalschrift" 1865, I, S. 112-113; ibid. 1868, I, S. 42. See Prof. J. H. Moulton and Rev. George Milligan in "The Expositor" 1909, IV, p. 383. Apol. I. 34 (Migne gr. VI, COl. 384): ἐν ᾖ ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, ὡς και μαθεῖν δύνασθε ἐκ τῶν ἀπογραγῶν τῶν γενομένων ἐπὶ Κυρηνίου τοῦ ὑμετέρου, ἐν Ἰουδαίᾳ πρώτου γενομένου ἐπιτρόπου.. Rev. Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke, p.5I, and in A Dictionary of the Bible ed. by J. Hastings, vol. IV (Edinburgh 1902), p. 183 b. Cp. Prof. Th. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Lucas ausgelegt I, S 134–135, and Prof. M. D. Muretov in “Additions to the Works of St. fathers" 1884, part XXXIV, p. 650. So Rev. Alfred Plummer in A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke, p. 51 that Quirinius was a financial official under the legate Varus. See Kubitschek y R a u 1 y-W i s s o w a, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft III, 2, Sp. 1920. R. S. Bour, L'inscription de Quirinius et le recensement de S. Luc, p. 48–51. Prof. Dr. Joseph Felten, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte I, S. 144; cp. and Henri Browne, Ordo saeclorum, p. 46, 47. Prof. W. M. Ramsay: The Census of Quirinius in The Expositor 1897, VI, p. 431, and Was Christ born at Bethlehem? p. 238, 246. Prof. W. M. Ramsay in The Expositor 1912, XI, p. 399 spq. 404, 406, 481, 483. Based on an inscription discovered in Antioch of Pisidia and explained by prof. V. M. Re'msey (see "Tlie Expositor" 1921, XI, p. 401 sqq.), accept his conclusions about the existence of Quirinius in Syria and Cilicia in 9–8. to r. Chr. both Maas (Eine neue Quirinius-Inschrift in Theologische Literaturzeitung 1912, Nr. 19, Sr. 605–606) and J. A. G. van Leeuwen (Quirinius: eene mededeeling in Theologische Studien, 1912, U1, bl. 428–431). G. Maskinlau (The Magi, p. 166–167) and – partly – V. S. Bour (L’inscription de Quirinius et le recensement de S. Luc, p. 41–48, 51) agree with Ramsey. See also A. P. Sym, Art "Quirinius" in Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, ed. by James Hastings, vol. II (Edinburgh 1908), p. 463–464, and Rev. Alfred Plummer in A Dictionary of the Bible IV, p. 183a, 2. Cm. † Prof. Moritz von Aberle in Theologische Quartalschrift 1865, I, 112; B. S. Bour, L'inscription de Quirinius et le recensement de S. Luc, p. 28; Dr. Alfons Mayer, Die Schatzung bei Christi Geburt, S. 67, R. P. Fr. M.–J. Lagrange in "Revue biblique internationale", nouvelle serie VIII: 1 Janvier 1911, p. 7; Prof. W. M. Ramsay in The Expositor 1912, XI, p. 395, 397; Prof. Th. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Lucas ausgelegt I, pp. 133–134. Sometimes, on the contrary, he is unnecessarily humiliated: see † Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischeu Volkes 4 I, pp. 538–539. So it is with Ast. Kroymann, Sept. Florent. Tertulliani opera, pars III in Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum, Vindobonae 1906, p. 483. Adversus Judaeos VIII: Migne lat. P. p 614. See about this A. W. Zumpt, Das Geburtsjahr Christi (Leipzig 1869), S. 5–6, and Liс. Dr. Wandel in "Studien und Kritiken" 1892, I, S. 124–125. See † Prof. E. Schürer in Theologische Literaturzeitung 1899, Nr. 25, Sp. 679. R.R.Fr. M.-J. Lagrange in "Revue biblique Internationale", nouvelle serie VIII: 1 Janvier 1911, p. 72. Cp. and prof. Gr. E. Zenger, The Jewish Question in Ancient Rome, p. 126 approx. See Prof. Th Zahn. Das Evangelium des Lucas ausgelegt I, S. 182, 29. † Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes 4 I, pp. 322–324. Cm. Liс. Dr. Wandel in "Studien und Kritiken" 1892, I, S. 116. Liс. Dr. Wandel in "Studien nnd Kritiken" 1892, I, S. 117. Liс. Dr. Wandel in "Studien nnd Kritiken" 1892, I, S. 119. Prof. Dr. Joseph Felten, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte II, S. 304, 305. So Dr. theol. Carl Mommert that Quirinius was governor of Syria in 748–750. after Saturninus and before Varus (Zur Chronologie des Lebens Jesn, S. 194) and qualified the second (?) Syrian legate in 749 (S. 195, 196). See † Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes 4 I, pp. 320–321. This does not establish an exact service relationship between these individuals, which is why the objection (by R. R. Fr. M.-J. Lagrange in “Revue bibliqne intefnationale“, nouvelle serie VIII: 1 Janvier 1911, p. 70) does not have much force either, that due to his official rank, Saturninus could not be an assistant under Quirinius. See † Prof. Dr. Moritz von Aberle in Theologische Quartalschrift 1865, I, S. 112–113, 127, 128, 130 ff., 145; ibid. 1868, I, S. 30, 42, 46 ff., 54, 57; ibid. 1874, 14, S. 683 ff. So Wm. Weber in "Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft" X (1909), 4, S. 313–314, 316. † Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes 4 1, S.541, 140. He disputes the duration of the census of R. S. Bour (L’inscription de Quirinius et le recensement de S. Luc, pp. 34–36), energetically defending the “simultaneity” (simultaneite) of Quirinius’ “reigns” in Syria and the birth of Christ (p. 32 ss., 40), but he also strongly testifies (p. 31) to Luke 2:2: “Je dis qu'il contient vraiment une date chronologique, indeterminee seulement en ce sens, qu'elle n'indique pas le moment precis d'un eventement qui, d' antre part, a eu lien pendant le temps оu Q etait ἠγεμονεύων τῆς Συρίας... Notons aussi, d’une antre côté, le genitif absolu, qui ne signifie nullement que ce recensement ait ete fait par Q... Ce genitif absolu dn grec exprime simplement que le recensement a ete fait pendant qne Quirinins etait ἠγεμονεύων τῆς Σ. " And it must be added that other analogies cannot be directly applied to Palestine, where special adaptations were required in view of the peculiarities of its state-legal situation and internal structure, why rapid progress in other places could happen here slowly and gradually. So, according to Dr. Alfons Mayer, the census was started under Saturninus, continued under Varus and only completed under Quirinius (Die Schatznng bei Christi Geburt, S. 70 ff., 73), why Christ was not born under the latter (S. 72). Wed. R.P.Fr. M.J. Lagrange in "Revue bibiique internationale", nouvelle serie VIII: 1 Janvier 1911, p. 66 ss. For example, and according to † Josephus Knabmbauer, the census was only completed under Quirinius (Evangelium secundum Lucam, p. 2 115), See also p. 56, 2. N. Lecoultre, De censu Quiriniano, p. 46. This is, for example, the hypothesis † of prof. A. A. Nekrasov (Reading the Greek text of the Holy Gospels, Kazan 1888, pp. 69–71) that Luke has a special and different from the famous Roman dignitaries Cyrenius or Cyrenius (Κορήνιος, Cyrenius), and Josephus has Quirinus, for which there is not the slightest serious reason. Let us only note that Bened Niese uses the style Κορίνιος in his edition of the works of Josephus, but for him Κορήνιος is also possible (see Prof. Th. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Lucas ansgelegt I, S. 130, 18), and the latter is equivalent to Quirinius (see. in Dr. Hermann Gerlach, Die römischen Statthalter in Syrien und Judaea von 69 vor Christo bis 69 nach Christo. Berlin 1860, S. 36 ff), which is also accepted for Tacitus, but not Quirinus (although it dominates in Carolus Halm, Cornelii Taciti libri qui supersunt, t. 1, Lipsiae 1889, in Bibliotheca Teubneriana and defended, for example, by William Hyde in “The Living Church” XXXX, 18: Milwaukee, Wis., March 4, 1905, p. 613 b). So, Rev. Alfred Plummer would suggest (in A Dictionary of the Bible ed. by J a m e s H a s t i n g s IV, p. 183 b not.) to read in Luke. 2:2 Κουιντιλίου instead of Κυρηνίου. Hitherto on this subject, two more accepted in science have been suggested about the circumstances under which the first Quirinian census took place: 1) or it was on the occasion of the refusal of 6,000 Pharisees to renounce their oath to Caesar (Jos. Flavii Antiqu. XVII, 2: 4) around 6 BC (Lie. Dr. Wandel in “Studien und Kritiken” 1892, I, S. 120; Prof. Dr. Joseph Felten, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte I, S. 142; R. P. Fr. M.-J. Lagrange in “Revue biblique internationale”, nouvelle serie VIII: 1 Janvier 1911), 2) or after his unauthorized campaign against the Arabs. aroused the anger of Augustus, who threatened that he would now cease to see him as a friend and would consider him only a subject (Antiqu. XVI, 9: 2. 3; cf. above on p. 22), that is, after 8–7 years before the birth of Christ (Dr. Alfons Mayer, Die Schatzung bei Christi Geburt, S. 62–63). See † Prof. Dr. Moritz von Aberle in Theologische Quartalschrift 1874, IV, S 673; Prof. Th. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Lucas ans gelegt I, S. 129. See about this † Prof. M.v. Aberle in "Theologische Quartalschrift" 1865, IV, S. 148, - † Josephus Knabenbauer, Evangelium secundum Lucam. r. 2 160–111. Rev. Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke, p. 48, 50. You might be interested in: