This is not the place to discuss the formidable difficulties arising from St. Luke’s reference (ii. 1 ff.) to “the decree from Cæsar Augustus” and “the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” These are set out in full in Schürer’s _Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ_, i. 2, pp. 105-143; on the other side should be read Sir W. M. Ramsay’s _Was Christ born at Bethlehem?_ (1898). It has been held that St. Luke is guilty of an anachronism in making the birth of Christ contemporary with the well-known enrolment under Quirinius (Acts v. 37), which took place ten years after the death of Herod, and that other features in his account, which lacks external support, render the whole narrative incredible. Those who argue that the Evangelist is guilty of such gross error must at least admit that he had not read the last books of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus (see Note IV below). But it is difficult to believe that a historian generally so careful has erred in this way. Since Schürer’s indictment was written, Ramsay has adduced important new evidence from the papyri, proving that in Egypt from the time of Augustus a periodic census or “enrolment by household” took place every fourteen years; he has further given reason for thinking that this system applied to other provinces and dependencies of the Roman Empire, and that Judæa under Herod was not exempt, although a concession was made to local prejudice in the manner of the enrolment; he concludes that the “first” enrolment under Quirinius and the birth of Christ fell in the year 6 B.C. He has not quite removed all difficulties. In particular, it seems impossible to find room within the lifetime of Herod for the first governorship of Quirinius, unless the ἡγεμονία mentioned by St. Luke refers to his appointment as a _special_ lieutenant of Augustus to conduct the war against the Homonadenses, while Quintilius Varus administered the ordinary affairs of Syria. But why in that case does St. Luke connect the census with the military commander Quirinius, rather than with Varus? II. Note on § (26). THE ALLEGED WITNESS TO JESUS CHRIST Recent literature:— (_a_) For the authenticity of the whole section. F. C. Burkitt; in _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, Leiden, 1913, pp. 135 ff. A. Harnack in _Internat. Monatsschrift für Wissenschaft und Technik_, 1913, pp. 1037 ff. (I have, unfortunately, been unable to see this, and only know it through Norden’s rejoinder, which seems conclusive.) (_b_) For partial interpolation. Th. Reinach in _Revue des Études Juives_, tom. xxxv, 1897, pp. 1 ff. P. Corrsen in _Zeitschrift für die N.T. Wissenschaft_, 1914, pp. 114 ff., _Die Zeugnisse des Tacitus u. Pseudo-Josephus über Christus_ (thinks the interpolation has probably replaced a genuine statement of Josephus about Christ). (_c_) Against the authenticity of the whole section.