Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Luke 2:1 - 2:7
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
THE HISTORY OF THE NATIVITY
Luk_2:1-20
A. The highest Gift of Heaven. Luk_2:1-7
(Luk_2:1-14, the Gospel for Christmas.)
All the world.— ÉÉ ᾶóáἡ ïἰêïõ ìÝíç denotes not merely the country of the Jews, but the whole Roman empire (orbis terrarum); and the enrolling ( ἀðïãñὰöåóèáé ) was undertaken to obtain a registry of the inhabitants of the country, and of their respective possessions, whether for the purpose of levying a poll-tax, or of recruiting the army.
Luk_2:2. The registering itself took place as the first, when Quirinius was governor of Syria.—The difficulties found in this remark of Luke, and the various efforts which have been made to solve this chronological enigma, are well known. (See among others, Winer, in voce, Quirinius, Real-wörterbuch, ii. 292 ff.)
[The difficulties are found in the following statements:
1. That the emperor Augustus ordered a general census throughout the empire (Luk_2:1). But it is certain from heathen authorities that Augustus ordered at least three times, A. U. 726, 746, and 767, a census populi, and also that he prepared himself a breviarium totius imperii, which was read, after his death, in the Roman senate. Comp. the Monumentum Ancyranum; Tacitus, Annal. 1, 11; Sueton. Octav. 28, 101. The census of 726 and that of 767 can not be meant by Luke; that of 746 may be the same, but it seems to have been confined to the cives Romani. It is more probable that the census here spoken of was connected with the breviarium totius imperii, in which was noted also quantum sociorum (including King Herod) in armis.
2. That a Roman census was ordered for Judæa at the time of Christ’s birth (Luk_2:3), i.e., during the reign of Herod the Great and before Palestine became a Roman province (A. U. 759). But Herod was a rex socius, who had to pay tribute to the Romans; and, then, this census may have been ordered not so much for taxation, as for statistical and military purposes to make out a full estimate of the whole strength of the empire. The same object is contemplated in the decennial census of the United States.
3. That Luke assigns the census here spoken of to the period of the presidency of Quirinus (Cyrenius) over Syria, while, according to Josephus, Antiq. xvii. cap. 13, § 5; xviii. 1, 1, this Quirinus became governor of Syria after the deposition of Archelaus and the annexation of Judæa to Syria, A. U. 758 or 760, that is about eight or ten years after Christ’s birth, which preceded Herod’s death in 750 A. U. (According to the isolated, and hence unreliable, statement of Tertullian, Adv. Marc. iv. 19, Christ was born when Q. Saturninus was governor of Syria.) I shall give the passage of Josephus in full, that the reader may judge better of the nature of the difficulty and the attempts to solve it.
(Antiq. xvii. Luke 13, §5): “So Archelaus’s country was laid to the province of Syria; and Quirinius(Cyrenius), who had been consul was sent by Cæsar to take account of the people’s effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus. (B. xviii. ch. i § 1.) Now Quirinius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Cæsar to be a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius, also, a man of the equestrain order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover,Quirinius came himself into Judæa, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus’s money. But the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further oppositon to it, by the persuasion of Joazer, who was the son of Bœthus, and highpriest; so they being over-persuaded by Joazer’s words, gave an account of their estates, withouth any dispute about it. Yet was there one judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who taking with him Saddiuk, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said, that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert tgeir liberty, as if they could procure them happiness and socurity for what they possessed, and assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity.”
The census of Quirinius here described by Josephus, is evidently the same to which Luke alludes in Act_5:37 : “After this man arose Judas the Galilean, in the days of the enrolment ( ἐí ôáῖò ἡìÝñáéò ôῆò ἀðïãñáöῆò ), and drew away much people after him,” etc. Josephus calls this rebellious Judas a Gaulonite because he was of Gamala in Lower Gaulanitis; but in Antiq. xx. 5, 2 and De Bello Jud. ii. 8, 1 he calls him likewise a Ãáëéëáῖïò . In regard to this census, then, the Jewish historian entirely confirms the statement of the sacred historian.
But now the trouble is to find room for another census in Palestine under the superintendence of the same Quirinius and at the time of Christ’s birth. This is the real and the only difficulty, and has given rise to various solutions, which are noticed below.
Besides the article of Winer to which Dr. van Oosterzee refers, the following authorities may be consulted on this vexed question: Philipp Eduard Huschke (a learned lawyer of Breslau): Ueber den zur Zeit Christi gehaltenen Census, 1840. Tholuck: Glaubwürdigkeit der evang. Geschichte. Wieseler: Chronologische Synopse, pp. 73–122. Henry Browne: Ordo Sœclorum, Lond. 1844, pp. 40–49. Fr.. Bleek: Synoptische Erklärung der drei ersten Evangelien, 1862, p. 67 ff. A. W. Zumpt: De Syria Romanorum provincia, &.c, 1854 (pp. 88–125). R. Bergmann: De inscriptione latina, ad P. Sulpicium Quirinium referenda, Berol. 1851. H. Gerlach: Die röm. Statthalter in Syrien u. Judäa von 69 a. C. bis 69 P. C. Berl. 1865, p. 22. H. Lutteroth: Le recensement de Quirinius en Judée, Par. 1865.—P. S.]
We reject as inadmissible: 1. The attempt to remove the difficulty in a critical way, whether by rejecting the whole verse as an erroneous gloss (as Venema, Valckenaer, Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others), or by altering the well-supported reading as by the omission of the article (with Lachmann). 2. The conjecture, that Quirinius instituted this census, not as ordinary Proconsul of Syria, but as extraordinary legatus Cœsaris; for, in this case, Luke would certainly have employed another word than ἡãåìïíåýåéí . 3. The explanation, that this enrolment took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria (Tholuck and Wieseler). Luke writes better Greek than to use ðñþôç in the sense of ðñïôÝñá . 4. The evasion, that ἀðïãñáöÞ means registration as well as taxation (Ebrard), and that the former took place now, the latter eleven years after under Quirinius. 5. Entirely arbitrary and gratuitous is the supposition of Schleiermacher, that it was merely a priestly taxing that took the parents of Jesus to Bethlehem, which Luke incorrectly confounds with the Roman census.
Setting these aside, we believe we may render the passage thus: the taxing itself was made, for the first time, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. With Paulus, Lange, and others, we read áýôÞ for áὓôç ; a reading which no one can deem inadmissible, who considers that Luke himself wrote without accents. We believe that the Evangelist inserts this remark, to distinguish the decree for the enrolment, which brought Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem, from the enrolment itself, which was not carried into execution till several years later. From the mention of the governor of Syria and Judæa it is evident that Luk_2:2 speaks of the enrolment in the country of Judæa, while Luk_2:1 refers to the enrolment of the whole Roman empire. Nothing prevents us from supposing that the ἀðïãñáöÞ was really ordered and begun at the birth of Christ, but was interrupted in Judæa for a time by the death of Herod, and the political changes consequent on that event, and subsequently resumed and carried out with greater energy under Cyrenius, so that it might rightly be said to have been made, or completed, when he was governor. The remark of Luke, that this taxing was the first that was made in Judæa, is no doubt designed to make prominent the fact that the birth of Jesus occurred just at the time when the deepest humiliation of the Jewish nation by the Romans had begun. Perhaps also in the fact that our Lord should, so soon after His birth, have been enrolled as a Roman subject, he may have discovered a trace of that universality which characterizes his Gospel.
Thus viewed, the account of Luke contains nothing that compels us to charge him with a mistake of memory, in so public and important a fact. Had he not investigated everything from the beginning (Luk_1:1-3), and does he not show (Act_5:37) an accurate acquaintance with the taxing which took place eleven [ten] years later, and was the cause of so many disorders? The decree of Augustus was not improbable in itself; and from the account of Tacitus (Ann. i. 11) it may be inferred, that it was actually promulgated. For he tells us, that after the death of Augustus, Tiberius caused a statistic account, in the handwriting of Augustus, to be read in the senate, in which, among other particulars, were stated the revenue and expenditure of the nation, and the military force of the citizens and allies. Now, Augustus could not have obtained such information concerning Judæa without an ἀðïãñáöÞ , nor is it at all inconceivable, that the territory even of an ally, such as Herod was, should have been subjected to so arbitrary a measure. It appears also from Josephus (Ant. Jud. xvi. 4, 1; xvii. 5–8, 11), that Herod was not at all indulged at Rome, but was regarded with a considerable measure of disfavor, and perhaps the enrolment could be affected in a milder manner in the dominions of an ally, than among the inhabitants of a conquered province. The monumentum Ancyranum at all events, proves, that in the year 746 A. U. C. an enrolment of Roman citizens took place, and that, therefore, such enrolments were by no means uncommon in the days of Augustus. The notices of this enrolment by Cassiodorus (Var. iii. 52) and Suidas (in voce, ἀðïãñáöÞ ) prove less, since both these authors, being Christians, might have drawn their information from Luke. But the silence of Josephus, concerning this whole transaction, may easily be accounted for, especially if we allow that the enrolment was indeed begun under Herod, but not at once completed. Suetonius speaks but very briefly of the whole period; while in Dion Cassius we find no notice at all of the history of the five years preceding the Christian era. They cannot, therefore, be cited as evidence against Luke; and we should certainly be mistaken in supposing, that the complete imperial äüãìá was, in all places, immediately complied with, as if by magic. Should any feel, however, that all these considerations fail to remove the existing difficulties, we can only advise them to assign such data to the ὀóôñáêßíïéò óêåýåóé , in which the great treasure of the gospel is deposited.
[There is another and better solution of the chronological difficulty which should be mentioned, viz., the assumption that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria, once three years before Christ down to the birth of Christ (A. U. 750–753), and once about 6–11 after the birth of Christ (760). A double legation of Quirinius in Syria has recently been made almost certain by purely antiquarian researches from two independent testimonies, viz.: 1. From a passage in Tacitus, Annales, iii. 48, as interpreted by A. W. Zumpt: De Syria Romanorum provincia ab Cœsare Augusto ad T. Vespasianum (Comment. Epigraph. ad antiq. Rom. pert. Berl. 1854, vol. ii. pp. 88–.25), and approved by Mommsen: Res gestœ divi Augusti, pp. 121–124; comp. also Zumpt’s recent article in Hengstenberg’s Evang. Kirchenzeitung for Oct. 14, 1865 (against Strauss: Die Halben und die Ganzen). 2. From an old monumental inscription discovered between the Villa Hadriani and the Via Tiburtina, and first published at Florence, 1765, and more correctly by Th. Mommsen, 1851, which must be referred, not to Saturninus (as is done by Zumpt), but to Quirinius (according to the celebrated antiquarians, Mommsen and Bergmann), and which plainly teaches a second governorship in these words: Proconsul Asiam provinciam ob[tinuit legatus] Divi Augusti iterum [i.e., again, a second time] Syriam et Ph[œnicem administravit or obtinuit]. Comp. Rich. Bergmann: De inscriptione latina, ad P. Sulpicium Quirinium, Cos. a. 742 U. C., ut videtur, referenda, Berol. 1851, together with a votum of Mommsen, ibid. pp. iv.–vii.; also Herm. Gerlach: Die rŏ Statthalter in Syrien und Judäa von 69 vor Chr. bis 69 nach Chr. Berl. 1865, p. 22 ff. We hold, then, to a double census under Quirinius: the first ( ðñὼôç ) took place during his first Syrian governorship, and probably in connection with a general census of the whole empire (the breviarium totius imperii), including the dominion of Herod as a rex socius, and this is the one intended by Luke in our passage; while the second took place several years afterwards, during his second governorship, and had reference only to Palestine, with the view to fix its tribute after it had become a direct Roman province (A. U. 759), and this is the census mentioned in Act_5:37, and Josephus, in Antiq. xvii. 1, § 1. It is certain that Augustus held at least three census populi of the empire.—P. S.]
Luk_2:4. Joseph also went up.—The usual expression for going from Galilee to the much more elevated region of Jerusalem. The enrolment would naturally take place in Judæa, in consideration of the claims of nationality. The policy of Rome, as well as the religious scruples of the Jews, demanded it. For this reason, each went to be registered, every one to his ancestral city; though, in other cases, the Romish census might he taken either according to the place of residence or the forum originis. Bethlehem.—Comp. the remarks of Lange on Mat_2:1.
Luk_2:5. With Mary.—The conjecture that Mary was an heiress (Olshausen and others) who had possessions in Bethlehem, and was obliged to appear there to represent an extinct family, cannot be proved, and is also unnecessary. Undoubtedly, according to the Roman custom, women could be enrolled without their personal appearance; nor did the Jewish practice require their presence. But if no edict obliged Mary to travel to Bethlehem, neither did any forbid her accompanying her husband; and her love for the city of David seems to have overcome all difficulties. Would not a contemplative spirit like hers, perceive that the äüãìá of Cæsar Augustus was but an instrument, in the hand of Providence, to fulfil the prophecy of Micah (Luk_5:1), with respect to the birth-place of Messiah; and now that all was cleared up between her and Joseph, could she have been willing to await the hour of her delivery alone in Galilee, while he was obliged to travel into Judæa?
Luk_2:7. In a manger.—Probably some cave or grotto used for sheltering cattle, and perhaps belonging to the same shepherds to whom the “glad tidings” were first brought. Justin Martyr, in his Dial. c. Tryph., speaks of a óðçëáῖïí óýíåããõò ôῆò êþìçò . Compare also Origen, Contra Cels. 1, 55. At all events, even if this tradition be unfounded, it cannot be proved that it arose from a misunderstanding of Isa_33:16. In any case, it deserves more credit than the account in the Protevangelium of James, Luke 18, and Hist. de nativit. Mariœ, Luke 13, that during her journey the time of Mary’s delivery arrived, and that she was obliged to seek refuge in this cave. Luke, on the contrary, gives us reason to conclude that she had arrived at Bethlehem, and sought, though in vain, a shelter in the êáôÜëõìá . It is not probable that the öÜôíç formed part of the caravanserai; nor can we agree with Calvin’s view, that descendants of the royal race were designedly harshly and inhospitably treated by Roman officials. It is more likely that Mary and Joseph would not, in their state of poverty, be thought worth the distinction of any special mortification.
2. As the time of Herod is the turning-point between the old and new dispensations, so is it also the most brilliant period in the revelations of God. God, man, and the God-Man, are never presented to us under a brighter light.
3. God manifests all His attributes in sending His Son: His power, in making Mary became a mother through the operation of the Holy Ghost; His wisdom, in the choice of the time, place, and circumstances; His faithfulness, in the fulfilment of the word of prophecy (Mic_5:1); His holiness, in hiding the miracle from the eyes of an unbelieving world; and especially His love and grace (Joh_3:16). But, at the same time, we see how different, and how infinitely higher, are His ways and thoughts than ours. His dealings with His chosen ones seem obscure to our finite apprehension, when we see that she who was most blessed of all women, finds less rest than any other. God brings His counsel to pass in silence, without leaving the threads of the web in mortal hands. Apparently, an arbitrary decree decides where Christ is to be born. Still, when carefully viewed, a bright side is not wanting to the picture. God as the Almighty carries out His plan through the free acts of men; and without his knowledge Augustus is an official agent in the kingdom of God.
4. Man also manifests himself at the birth of the Lord: his nothingness in the midst of earthly greatness is shown in Cæsar Augustus; his high rank and destiny in the midst of earthly meanness, in Mary and Joseph.
5. The God-Man, who here lies before us as a ðñùôüôïêïò , is at the same time the absolute miracle and the most inestimable benefit. God and man, the old and new covenants, heaven and earth, meet in a poor manger.
“Den aller Weltkreis nie beschloss
Der liegt hier in Mariens Schooss,” etc.
He who, either secretly or openly, denies this truth, can never understand the significance of the Christmas festival—perhaps never experience the true Christmas joy. The denial of the divinity of Christ by the Rationalist preacher is annually punished at the return of every Christmas celebration.
6. When we are once convinced who it is that came, the manner in which He came becomes a manifestation not only of the love of the Father, but also of the grace of the Son. 2Co_8:9.
The lowly birth of the Saviour of the world coincides exactly with the nature of His kingdom. The origin of this kingdom was not of earth; its fundamental law was to deny self, and for love to serve others; its end, to become great through abasement, and to triumph by conflict: all this is here exhibited before our eyes as in compendio.
7. The more our astonishment is excited by the miracle of the incarnation, the more must we be struck by the infinite simplicity—we could almost say barrenness, and chronicle-like style—of St. Luke’s account of it. Few internal evidences of authenticity are more convincing than those furnished by a careful comparison of the canonical and apocryphal narratives of the Nativity. The contrast is as indescribable, as between a calm summer night enlightened by tender moonbeams, and a stage-scene of tree and forest lit up with Bengal lights. Such a delineation could only be the work of one resolved to say neither less nor more than the truth.
8. In contemplating what the sacred history says, we must not overlook what it passes over in silence. Of a birth without pain, salva virginitate, nulla obstetricis ope, and other similar commenta, in which a fancy not always pure has delighted itself, not a jot or tittle is mentioned. How early, however, such play of human wit began and found favor, may be seen, among others, in the example of Ambrosius, who in his treatise De instit. Virg., Opera, tom. 2. p. 257, finds the maternal lap of Mary described in Eze_44:2, of which he sang:
“Fit porta Christi pervia,
Referta plena gratia,
Transitque rex et permanet
Clausa, ut fuit per sæcula.”
9. The designation, “her first-born son,” does not necessarily imply that the union of Joseph and Mary was blessed with other children. The first born might also be the only child. The question, therefore, whom we are to understand by the ἀäåëöïß of Jesus must be decided independently of this expression.
[Comp. on this difficult question my annotation to Lange’s Matthew, p. 256 ff.; the commentators on Mat_1:25; and also Bleek: Synoptische Erklärung, etc., vol. i. p. 76. Bleek remarks, that ðñùôüôïêïò may indeed apply to the only child of a mother, but only at the time of his birth, or at least as long as there is some prospect of other children. The Evangelists, however, looking back to the past history, could not well use this term of Jesus, if they had known that Mary had no other children.—P. S.]
10. The first reception which Jesus met with in this world, is in many respects of a typical character. Comp. Joh_1:11. Bengel well remarks: “etiam hodie Christo rarus in diversoriis locus.”
[11. St. Bernard: “Why did our Lord choose a stable? Evidently that He might reprove the glory of the world, and condemn the vanities of this present life. His very infant body has its speech.” Dr. Pusey: “Christ’s attendants were the rude cattle, less rude only than we, the ox and the ass, emblems of our untamed rebellious nature, yet owning, more than we, ‘their master’s crib.’ Isa_1:3; Psa_32:9.”—P. S.]
The manger of Jesus, 1. the scene of God’s glory, 2. the sanctuary of Christ’s honor, 3. the foundation-stone of a new heaven and a new earth.—The Saviour of the world is (2Co_9:15), 1. a gift of God, 2. an unspeakable gift, 3. a gift for which we must give Him thanks.—The birth of Jesus, the new birth of the human race: 1. Without it, the new birth of mankind is impossible; 2. with it, the new birth is begun; 3. by it, the new birth is assured.—The Christmas festival the festival of the faithfulness of God.—The coming of the Son of God in the flesh, a manifestation of the infinite wisdom of God: this wisdom evidenced in the time (Luk_2:1-2), the place (Luk_2:3; Luk_2:5), and the mean circumstances (Luk_2:6-7) of His appearing.—The manger, 1. what it conceals, 2. what it reveals.—The whole world summoned to be enrolled as subjects of this King.—“Behold, I make all things new:” 1. A new Revelation , 2. a new covenant, 3. a new man, 4. a new world.—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, equally manifested and glorified in the manger of Bethlehem.—Christmas, the celebration of, 1. the highest honor, and 2. the deepest disgrace, of man.—The manger of the Nativity, a school of, 1. deep humility, 2. stead-fast faith, 3. ministering love, and 4. joyful hope.—The coincidences between the birth of Christ in us, and the birth of Christ for us: The birth in us Isaiah , 1. carefully prepared for, 2. quietly brought to pass, 3. as much misunderstood by the world, yet, 4. as quickly manifested upon earth, and rejoiced over in heaven, as the birth for us.
Starke:—The first lesson given us by the new-born Christ is, Obey.—Even before we are born, we are wanderers in the world.—Jesus has consecrated all the hard places on which we are obliged to lie in this world.
Heubner:—Earthly kingdoms are obliged to serve the heavenly kingdom.—The enrolment of Jesus among the children of men, the salvation of millions.—Our birth on earth, an entrance into a strange country.
F. W. Krummacher:—The threefold birth of the Son of God, 1. begotten of the Father before all worlds, 2. born of flesh in the world, 3. born of the Spirit in us.
C. Harms:—Christ in us conceived by the operation of the Holy Spirit, born in poverty and weakness, exposed to peril of death soon after birth, remains for years unknown, experiences, on appearing, great opposition, is persecuted and oppressed, but soon rises again, raises itself into heaven, and in His spirit they that cleave to him carry forward and complete His work.
Kuchler:—It is necessary for a due celebration of Christmas, that we should recognize the Son of God in the new-born child; for, without this recognition, we should lack, 1. the full reason for, and due appreciation of, this celebration; 2. we should observe it without the right spirit; and 3. fail to obtain its true blessing.
Fuchs:—The Son of God born in the little town of Bethlehem, a proof, 1. that the Lord certainly performs what He promises; 2. that with God nothing is impossible; 3. that nothing is too mean or too lowly for God.
Florey:—The festival of Christmas, a children’s festival: 1. It leads us to a child; 2. it fills the world of children with joy; 3. its due celebration demands a childlike spirit.
Ahlfeld:—The birth of the Lord the greatest turning-point of history: 1. The world and the heart before the birth of Christ; 2. the world and the heart after the birth of Christ.
Tholuck:—The characteristics of Christmas joy; it is a secret, silent, childlike, modest, elevating joy.
Jaspis:—How the celebration of the first Christmas still glorifies itself in the heart of believing Christians.
Dr. Thym:—Christmas joy over the Christmas gift.
[M. Henry:—Christ was born in an inn, to intimate: 1. That He was homeless in this world; 2. that he was a pilgrim on earth, as we ought to be; 3. that He welcomes all comers, and entertains them, but without money and without price.—P. S.]
Footnotes:
Luk_2:1.—To register or enrol is the proper term for ἀðïãñÜöåóèáé (lit. to write off, to copy, to enter in a list; see the Greek Dictionaries). This may be done with a view to taxation ( ἀðïôßìçóéò , census), or for military, or statistical, or ambitious purposes. We know from Tacitus, Annal. i. 11, Suetonius, Aug. 28, 101, that Augustus drew up with his own hand a rationarium or breviarium otius imperii, in which “opes publicæ continebantur; quantum civium sociorumque in armis; quot classes, regna, provinciæ, tributa aut vectigalia et necessitates ac largitiones” (Tacitus). Tyndale, Coverdale, Cranmer, the Genevan Version, the Bishops’, and King James’ have all taxed; Rheims Version: enrolled; Norton, Sharpe, Campbell, Whiting, the revised N. T. of the Am. B. V.: registered; Luther: schätzen; Ewald: aufschreiben; Meyer, van Oosterzee: aufzeichnen.
Luk_2:2.—The usual reading is áὕôç ἡ ἀðïãñáöὴ ðñþôç ἐãÝíåôï . But Lachmann, on the authority mainly of the Vatican MS., omits the article ἡ , and this omission to which Wieseler assents, is now sustained by the Sinait. MS. The article is not necessary where the demonstrative pronoun takes the place of the prædicate; comp. Rom_9:8 : ôáῦôá ôÝêíá ôïῦ Èåïῦ sc. ἐóôßí ; Gal_3:7; Gal_4:24; 1Th_4:3; Luk_1:36; Luk_21:22, and Buttmann: Grammatik des N. T. 1859, p. 105.—Dr. van Oosterzee translates: die Aufzeichnung selbst geschah als erste, the registering itself took place as the first, etc. He reads with Paulus, Ebrard, Lange, Hofmann áὐôÞ , (ipsa) itself, instead of áὕôç , this (which may be done, since the sacred writers and oldest MSS. used no accents at all), and he bases upon this his solution of the chronological difficulty of the passage. See his Exeg. Notes. I cannot agree with this solution.
Luk_2:2.— Áὕôç ( ἡ ) ἀðï ãñáöὴ ðñþôç ἐãÝíåôï , ê . ô . ë ., This enrolment was the first made when, i.e., the first that was made or took place, Quirinus being then governor of Syria. The Vulgate: Hæc descriptio prima facta est a præside Syriæ Cyrino. This is, grammatically, the most natural rendering of ðñþôç , which probably refers to a second census under Quirinus, held about ten years after Christ’s birth, and mentioned by Luke in Act_5:37 ( ἐí ôáῖò ἡìÝñáéò ôῆò ἀðïãñáöῇò ), and by Josephus at the close of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th book of his Antiquities. Meyer translates likewise: Dieser Census geschah als der erste während Quirinus Præses von Syrien war. There are, however, other translations of ðñþôç , which arise more or less from a desire to remove the famous chronological difficulty involved in this incidental remark of Luke. (1) The authorized E. V., Bishop Middleton, Whiting, and others, take the word adverbially = ðñῶôïí , ðñῶôá , primum: “This enrolment was first made when,” etc., i.e., did not take effect until Quirinius was governor of Syria. But this sense would require a very different phrase such as ïὐ ðñüôåñïí ἐãÝíåôï ðñὶí ἤ , or ôüôå ðñῶôïí ἐãÝíåôï ὅôå , or ὕóôåñïí äἤ ἐãÝíåôï , ê . ô . ë . (2) Huschke, Tholuck, Wieseler, Ewald, and other eminent scholars solve the chronological difficulty by taking ðñþôç in the sense of ðñïôÝñá , prior to, or before Quirinius was governor. Ewald compares the Sanscrit and translates: Diese Schatzung geschah viel fruher als da Quirinus herrschte (Geschichte Christus’, p. 140; but not in his earlier translation of the Synoptical Gospels of 1850 where he translates: Dieser Census geschah als der erste während Quirinus über Syrien herrschte). Meyer objects to this interpretation, but both he and Bleek admit that ðñῶôüò ôéíïò may mean before some one. This usus loquendi is justified by Joh_1:5; Joh_1:30 : ðñῶôüò ìïõ , prior me; Joh_15:18 : ðñῶôïí ὑìῶí , priorem vobis; Jer_29:2 : ὕóôåñïí ἐîåëèüíôïò ( àַçֲøֵé òֵàú ) Ἰå÷ïíßïõ ôïῦ âáóéëÝùò , after the departure of Jeconiah the king (here, however, ἐîåëèüíôïò is gen. abs., and ðñþôç does not occur), and by several passages from profane writers (see Huschke, Wieseler, Meyer, and Bleek). But it cannot be denied that this sense of ðñþôç is at least very rare, and no clear case can be adduced where it occurs in connection with a participle; while, on the other hand, Luke might have expressed this sense much more clearly and naturally in his usual way by ðñὸ ôïῦ ἡãåìïíåýåéí (comp. Luk_2:21 of this chapter; Luk_12:15; Act_23:15), or by ðñßí or ðñὶí ἤ . Hence this translation, though not impossible, philologically, is yet not natural, and should only be adopted when the chronological difficulty can not be solved in a more satisfactory way. See the Exeg. Notes.
Luk_2:2.— Êõñç íéïò is the Greek form for the Latin Quirinius (not Quirinus, although Meyer insists on this form). His full name was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius; he was first consul at Rome, then præses of Syria, and died at Rome A. D. 21. See Tacitus, Annal. iii. 48; Sueton. Tiber. 49, and Josephus, Antiq. Book xvii. at the close, and Book xviii. at the beginning.
Luk_2:5.—The oldest and best authorities, including Cod. Sin., omit ãõíáéêß , which is no doubt a later supplement.
Luk_2:7.—The text. rec. (and Tischendorf in ed. 7) reads the article, ἐí ôῇ öÜôíῃ , in the manger; but the article is wanting in Codd. Sin., A., B., D., L., etc., and thrown out by Lachmann, Meyer, Alford, so that the Authorized Version is here (accidentally) correct. The article was added here and in Luk_2:12 by a copyist, in order to designate the particular, well known manger of our Saviour. Sharpe, Wakefield, Scarlett, Campbell, and Whiting have prematurely corrected the E. V. and inserted the definite article on the basis of the Elzevir text.—P. S.]
[We give here, as usual in the Exegetical and Critical Notes, the author’s own version, which reads: Die Aufzeichnung selbst geschah als erste, da, etc. He bases upon it his solution of the chronological difficulty, with which I cannot agree. See my Crit. Note 2, on Luk_2:2.—P. S.]
[Browne, also, in his learned work on Biblical chronology, entitled Ordo Sæclorum, p. 40 ff., solves the difficulty by taking ἡãåìþí in a wider sense and assuming that Quirinius was at the head of an imperial commission of the census for Syria.—P. S.]
[Comp., however, ðñῶôüò ìïõ , Joh_1:15; Joh_1:30; Joh_15:18, and my Critical Note 3 above.—P. S.]
[The objection to this solution of the difficulty is, that Luk_2:3 ff. relate the enrolment itself, or the execution of the imperial edict.—P. S.]
[The author, in the second edition, has a long note protesting against a superficial and inconsiderate review in Rudelbach and Guericke’s Zeitschrift for 1860, p. 502, which did him great injustice, and asserting his unqualified belief in the full Divinity of our Saviour for which he has long borne the reproach of Christ in Holland.—P. S.]
[So Jerome on Mat_1:25, Theophylact in Luk_2:7 ( ðñùôüôïêïò ëÝãåôáé ὁ ðñῶôïò ôå÷èåὶò , êἄí ìὴ äåýôåñïò ἐðåôÝ÷èç ), and all the Roman Catholic commentators, but evidently under the influence of the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary which obtained from the fourth century.—P. S.]