tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post4445706949303130320..comments2024-03-22T17:35:52.045-04:00Comments on Extra Thoughts: Some more notes on the census in LukeLydia McGrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-59572250017924691642021-10-02T09:32:25.260-04:002021-10-02T09:32:25.260-04:00Thanks, FC. I haven't investigated the Tertull...Thanks, FC. I haven't investigated the Tertullian citation, but I would be a little hesitant to attribute a textual change at that point as an explanation. OTOH, a sheer textual change of Saturninus to Quirinius wd. take care of a lot at one fell swoop, so perhaps it shd. be in our toolbox of possibilities. I would emphasize the disjunction of possible solutions as an important concept here. I doubt that Tertullian actually knew something independently of the Gospel, so either he knew of an earlier text version of the Gospel or he was attributing an error to Luke and saying that it was under Saturninus. Or perhaps he believed that S. was legate at that time and didn't have the Gospel open in front of him to recall that Luke said Quirinius.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-60680617916261708792021-10-02T06:59:03.435-04:002021-10-02T06:59:03.435-04:00Excellent response to the claim by skeptics, Lydia...Excellent response to the claim by skeptics, Lydia. You’ve given me some great info to take away. <br />The only question I would have is the 2nd century Christian apologist Tertullian, making a mention of the census but saying “there is historical proof that at this time a census has been taken in Judas by Sentius Saturninus…” Any thoughts on this? As he didn’t mention Quirinius. <br />Farmer craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033127049648784270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-39299226165412586882021-04-06T17:16:35.309-04:002021-04-06T17:16:35.309-04:00I know this is late, but Stephen C. Carlson has pr...I know this is late, but Stephen C. Carlson has proposed what I find to be a very plausible explanation of the passage on the census, which has only appeared on his blog and not, so far as I know, been circulated any further. As you pointed out, there are other meanings of "first," and that, along with the key verb (ginomai), is central to his interpretation. Here is the 3rd post in the series, which opens with links to the first two. <br />http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2004/12/putting-luke-22-in-context.html<br /><br />The first in the series keep having trouble loading for me. If that's so for you, I have downloaded it to a Word doc if you're interested in the full argument.Joshua W.D. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03010415370862297504noreply@blogger.com