without ground and I might as well say, that Josephus omitted in his Antiquities the particular account of Cyrenius's first assessment, because he intended to write afterward another book of the history of the Jews, and go over their affairs once more, as he expressly assures us at the conclusion of his Antiquities. Josephus informs us in his Life, written after the War and the Antiquities, that the Jews had a battle with Gessius Florus, their last procurator, and killed him, and a good many of his men; and that this victory was fatal to them, forasmuch as this determined them to the war with thef Romans. Is it not strange that Josephus should say nothing of this in the History of the War, where he has made so frequent mention of Florus, and ascribed the Jewish uneasiness under the Roman government to the cruelties and other irregularities of this man? For this instance I am indebted to Mr. Le Clerc. There is another omission appears to me very remarkable. Pheroras, Herod's youngest brother, is often mentioned by Josephus. He has particularly informed us, that when Augustus was in Syria, he gave this Pheroras a tetrarchy,h at the request of Herod; and we are informed by Josephus, of Pheroras's retirement into his tetrarchy, of Herod's visiting him there, and of Pheroras's dying at home, and of his being brought afterwards from thence to be buried. But yet, if I mistake not, he has never once said what this tetrarchy was, whose it had been before, nor where it lay. It is true, that whereas in the Antiquities Josephus says, Pheroras went to his tetrarchy; in his War' he says, he went to Peræa; or, as in some copies, Petræa: but Peræa, properly so called, could not be this tetrarchy, because Peræa belonged all along to Herod. But this tetrarchy of Pheroras was given him by Augustus, and was distinct from that estate or revenue which had been settled upon him by Herod. These particulars may convince us, that though Cyrenius was in Judea in the time of Herod, Josephus was capable of omitting to take notice of it. 4. Again, it will be said: It may be fairly concluded * Ο δ' επελθων και συμβαλων μαχη, ενικήθη, πολλων των μετ' αυτό πεσοντων και γίνεται το Γεσσιο πταισμα, συμφορα τε παντος ήμων εθνες επήρθησαν γαρ επι τετῳ μαλλον οἱ τον πολεμον αγαπησαντες, και νικήσαντες της Ρωμαιος εις τελος ηλπισαμεν in Vit. sect. 6. k Ant. l. xv. c. 10. sect. 3. 8 Hist. Eccl. A. D. 66. n. 12. i Ibid. l. xvii. c. 3. de B. J. l. i. c. 29. Φερώρας δε Φερώραν δ' επ. της αυτό τετραρχίας' p. 756. ν. 37. ὑποχωρήσειεν εις την Περαίαν, p. 1031. v. 41. vid. et p. 1032. ν. 26. * Τψ μεν αδελφῳ Φερώρα παρα Καισαρος ητήσατο τετραρχίαν, αυτός απονει μας εκ της βασιλειας προσόδον ἑκατον ταλαντων, κ. λ. Ant. l. xv. c. 10. sect. 3 6 from another place in Josephus, that Cyrenius was but once in Judea. For he says, that Massada was then held by Eleazar, the chief man of the sicarii, a descendant of Judas, who persuaded not a few of the Jews not to enrol themselves, as I have said" above, when Cyrenius the cen'sor° was sent into Judea.' I own this is a difficulty, but the argument is not conclusive. It is true, that Judas made this disturbance when "Cyrenius was sent into Judea," or in the time of Cyrenius; but it does not follow, that Cyrenius was sent but once into Judea. The New Testament will afford us an instance upon this very subject, which will be of use to us. Gamaliel says, Acts v. 37," After this man, rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him." If we had in our hands this book only of St. Luke, namely, the Acts of the Apostles, it is not unlikely, that many would have supposed, that St. Luke knew of no other taxing made in Judea, but that in the time of which Judas rose up. But we are assured from his gospel, that this conclusion would have been false: for there he has spoke very particularly of another, which he calls the first, or at least distinguishes very plainly from some other. I must be allowed to repeat here once more, that arguments formed upon the silence of writers are very seldom of much moment. Josephus is the only Jewish writer of those times in whom we have the history of that country; and it cannot be justly concluded, that any particular thing was not done, or that such or such circumstance did not attend it, because he has not mentioned it. All writers have their particular views, and some things we are very desirous to know, might, for some reason or other which we are ignorant of, lie without the compass of their designs. Besides, the most accurate and careful historians have omitted many facts or incidents, that might be very properly mentioned, through forgetfulness or oversight. I take the omission of the description of the tetrarchy that belonged to Pheroras, to be a remarkable instance of this sort. 5. But it will be said, that Tertullian is positive, the census in Judea at the time of our Saviour's birth was made by Sentius Saturninus.P • Καλείται δε το μεν n Vid. de Bell. 1. ii. c. 17. sect. 8. φρέριον Μασαδα, προεισήκει δε των κατειληφότων αυτο σικαρίων δυνατος ανηρ Ελεαζαρος, απογονος Ιεδα τε πεισαντος Ιεδαίων εκ ολίγες, ως προτερον δεδηλωκαμεν, μη ποιεισθαι τας απογραφας, ότε Κυρηνιος τιμητης εις την Ιεδαίαν εжεμon de B. 1. vii. c. 2. sect. 1. P Sed et census constat actos sub Augusto nunc in Judæâ per Sentium Saturninum. Apud quos genus ejus inquirere potuissent. Cont. Marc. lib. iv. cap. 19. I answer to this: (1.) It ought to be considered, that the heretic Marcion, with whom Tertullian disputes in this place, did not admit the authority of the first chapters of St. Luke's gospel. And it was the custom of Tertullian, to argue from those parts of scripture which the heretics he was dealing with acknowledged. Possibly therefore Tertullian having, or supposing he had, reason to think, that this census was made when Saturninus was president of Syria, he might choose to mention the ordinary officer as a thing certain; but yet might not intend to affirm, that the census was made by him, but only that it happened in his time. Isaac Casaubon judged it not unreasonable so to understand Tertullian, who often uses words improperly. I thought it not fit to deprive the reader of this answer of that learned man: but I do not adopt his interpretation of Tertullian. (2.) Tertullian's authority ought not to outweigh the testimony of more ancient writers, who were nearer the event. Justin Martyr, in his first apology, presented to the Roman emperor sixty years before Tertullian wrote his books against Marcion, says, this census was performed in Judea by Cyrenius; and all other writers agree with Justin, as has been shown already. (3.) Tertullian's authority is of the less weight in this point, because he has made very gross blunders in history, of which I shall say somewhat more in the third chapter. 4. I imagine some account may be given of this mistake of Tertullian. It has been observed, that Marcion, whom Tertullian was now arguing with, did not own the first chapters of St. Luke's gospel. Tertullian therefore not having his eye particularly on St. Luke, and supposing that this census was made in Judea when Saturninus was president of Syria, says, it was made by him. Judea having been afterwards a branch of the province of Syria, he concluded it was so at this time, and that therefore the census must have been made by the president of Syria: but this was arguing from later to more early times, as men not thoroughly versed in history are apt to do. Accedit his Cerdon quidam.—Solum evangelium Lucæ, nec tamen totum ecipit. Post hunc discipulus ipsius emersit Marcion.-Hæresin Cerdonis approbare conatus est. De præscrip. Hæret. c. 51. Quam et argumentationibus earum, et scripturis quibus utuntur, provocavimus ex abundanti. De Carne Christi, cap. 25. • Tertullianus, cum adversus Marcio scribit, Sed et constat,-ad majorem fidem magistratum ordinarium potius nominat, quam extraordinarium. Ait autem per Sentium Saturninum dure et Tertullianice, hoc est, improprie pro επι Σεντια Σατερνινα, vel ἡγεμονεύοντος της Σ. Κ. Casaub. Exercit. 1 n. 31. After the banishment of Archelaus Judea was annexed to Syria; but whilst Herod was living, the president of Syria had not any proper authority in Judea. The president of Syria was always the most considerable officer in the eastern part of the empire. When the Romans had any wart in that part of the world, the neighbouring kings were obliged to follow his directions; to furnish those sums of money, or those troops, which he required, and to send these to the places he appointed. When any differences happened between these kings and tetrarchs, they were bound to refer them to him, nor could they march any forces out of their territories without his consent: but he seems not, especially in a time of peace, to have had any proper authority within their dominions. Nor do I think I here impute to Tertullian any very gross mistake. The state of dependent kingdoms and provinces in the Roman empire underwent frequent changes, and a person had need to have made history his peculiar study, and to have aimed at some uncommon accuracy, in order to understand the state of the Roman provinces for a couple of centuries. I have now gone through all the difficulties which are of any moment in this point. I have nothing farther to add to those evidences, which I have already produced, except these two observations: 1st, That it seems to me highly probable, from the manner in which Eusebius speaks of this matter in his Chronicle, that it was originally the common opinion of christians, that Cyrenius was sent into Judea on purpose to make this census; In the thirty-third year of Herod, Cyrenius being 'sent by the Roman senate, made a census (or enrolments) of goods and persons.'" This does very much confirm the opinion of those learned men, who think that Cyrenius was sent with extraordinary power: though why Eusebius mentions the senate instead of the emperor I know not. Possibly some may be disposed to set aside Eusebius's authority, because in his Ecclesiastical History he has confounded the two surveys. But I must confess I ascribe that, not to ignorance, but to somewhat a great deal worse. It is impossible, that a man of Eusebius's acuteness, who had the New Testament and Josephus before him, should think t Tum intellecto barbarorum irrisu, qui peterent quod eripuerant, consuluit inter primores civitatis Nero, bellum anceps an pax inhonesta placeret, nec dubitatum de bello-scribitur tetrarchis ac regibus præfectisque ac procuratoribus,-jussis Corbulonis obsequi. Tacit. Ann. lib. xv. cap. 25. " Chron. p. 76. a census made after Archelaus's banishment was the same with that made before Herod died; but Eusebius was resolved to have St. Luke's history confirmed by the express testimony of the Jewish historian, right or wrong. Here Eusebius was under a bias. In his Chronicle we have a simple unbiassed account of what was the opinion of christians, and others, at that time. Secondly, It seems to me in the nature of the thing most probable, that some person was sent with extraordinary power to make this enrolment. There is no evidence in Josephus, that Augustus had any intention to take away the kingdom from Herod, and make Judea a province. A census in his dominions was a very great disgrace: but to have ordered it to be performed by the president of Syria, would have been an additional affront; it would have looked like making Herod subject to Syria. Since Judea was to continue a distinct kingdom as hitherto, and only to be reduced to a more strict dependence, the only method of making this census could be that of sending some person of honour and dignity, like Cyrenius, to enrol the subjects of Herod, and value their estates; that, for the future, tribute might be paid according to this census. And this does admirably suit the nature of the oath mentioned in Josephus, the substance of which was, to be faithful to Cæsar and Herod. I conclude therefore, that it is upon the whole most probable, that the first assessment, of which St. Luke here writes, was performed by Cyrenius, as well as the second. This appears to me a very natural meaning of St. Luke's words, and the external evidences for this supposition seem to me to outweigh the objections. If I We have now got through the affair of the census. have not been so happy as to remove every difficulty attending this text of St. Luke, yet I hope the reader will allow, at least, that I have not concealed or dissembled any. |