Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:56 am
May a man rather not have fathers and sisters (living), or even no relatives at all? But there is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ. Such a method of testing the point had therefore no consistency whatever in it and they "who were standing without" were really "His mother and His brethren." [AM 4.19]
Saturninus governor of Syria 10 - 6 BCE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Sentius_Saturninus. Luke's Quirinius is ten years after this. If this were in any other book - other than a text purporting to be a commentary on Luke essentially - this discrepancy might be minor. But the author who wrote these words clearly was making up the existence of a census in order to prove that Jesus was a historical person before he had any knowledge of Luke. There are many other example of this. But here it is clearly an example of Luke being inspired by the arguments behind Against Marcion.
Incidentally a gospel with one year or ministry for a 30 year old Jesus = 20 CE for the crucifixion - the date preferred by Schwartz, Mason, Charlesworth and many other based on numerous sources.
What about this reconstruction?
Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 26.8: 8 Ἔστι δὲ ἡμῖν καὶ σύνταγμα κατὰ πασῶν τῶν γεγενημένων αἱρέσεων συντεταγμένον, ᾧ εἰ βούλεσθε ἐντυχεῖν δώσομεν. / 8 But there is for us a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, we will give you.
Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 46.1: 1 Ἵνα δὲ μή τινες ἀλογισταίνοντες εἰς ἀποτροπὴν τῶν δεδιδαγμένων ὑφ’ ἡμῶν εἴπωσι πρὸ ἐτῶν ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα γεγεννῆσθαι τὸν Χριστὸν λέγειν ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ Κυρηνίου, δεδιδαχέναι δὲ ἅ φαμεν διδάξαι αὐτὸν ὕστερον χρόνοις ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ ἐπικαλῶσιν ὡς ἀνευθύνων ὄντων τῶν προγεγενημένων πάντων ἀνθρώπων, φθάσαντες τὴν ἀπορίαν λυσόμεθα. / 1 But lest some should without reason and for the perversion of what we teach maintain that we say that Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius, and subsequently, in the time of Pontius Pilate, taught what we say He taught; and should cry out against us as though all men who were born before Him were irresponsible--let us anticipate and solve the difficulty.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue 78.4: 4 Φοβηθεὶς οὖν οὐκ ἐκβέβληκεν αὐτήν, ἀλλά, ἀπογραφῆς οὔσης ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ τότε πρώτης ἐπὶ Κυρηνίου, ἀνεληλύθει ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ, ἔνθα ᾤκει, εἰς Βηθλεέμ, ὅθεν ἦν, ἀπογράψασθαι· ἀπὸ γὰρ τῆς κατοικούσης τὴν γῆν ἐκείνην φυλῆς Ἰούδα τὸ γένος ἦν. καὶ αὐτὸς ἅμα τῇ Μαρίᾳ κελεύεται ἐξελθεῖν εἰς Αἴγυπτον καὶ εἶναι ἐκεῖ ἅμα τῷ παιδίῳ, ἄχρις ἂν αὐτοῖς πάλιν ἀποκαλυφθῇ ἐπανελθεῖν εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν. / Then he was afraid, and did not put her away; but on the occasion of the first census which was taken in Judea, under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth, where he lived, to Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled; for his family was of the tribe of Judah, which then inhabited that region. Then along with Mary he is ordered to proceed into Egypt, and remain there with the Child until another revelation warn them to return into Judea.
- Justin composes the Syntagma, attributing the census to Saturninus.
- Justin later notices his own chronological error (or changes his mind about the chronology) and mentally corrects it in time for the first Apology and the Dialogue.
- But Tertullian uses the errant Syntagma, not noticing the later fix in the first Apology and the Dialogue.
Luke's chronology has always been notorious:
Luke 1.5: 5 In the days of Herod [died 4 BC to AD 1], king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
Luke 2.1-2: 1 Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus [ruled 27 BC to AD 14], that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. 2 This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria [AD 6-12].
That bit in red is a standalone; it could be justly put in parentheses. What if it were originally lacking, and the Lucan infancy narratives envisioned Jesus being born well and truly before King Herod's death, perhaps even while Saturninus was still governor of Syria? The infancy gospel of James includes Augustus ordering the census but nothing about it being under Quirinius:
Infancy gospel of James 17: 17 And there was an order from the Emperor Augustus, that all in Bethlehem of Judaea should be enrolled. And Joseph said: I shall enroll my sons, but what shall I do with this maiden? How shall I enroll her? As my wife? I am ashamed. As my daughter then? But all the sons of Israel know that she is not my daughter. The day of the Lord shall itself bring it to pass as the Lord will. And he saddled the ass, and set her upon it; and his son led it, and Joseph followed. And when they had come within three miles, Joseph turned and saw her sorrowful; and he said to himself: Likely that which is in her distresses her. And again Joseph turned and saw her laughing. And he said to her: Mary, how is it that I see in your face at one time laughter, at another sorrow? And Mary said to Joseph: Because I see two peoples with my eyes; the one weeping and lamenting, and the other rejoicing and exulting. And they came into the middle of the road, and Mary said to him: Take me down from off the ass, for that which is in me presses to come forth. And he took her down from off the ass, and said to her: Whither shall I lead you, and cover your disgrace? For the place is desert.
This chronology would actually pretty well agree with Matthew's, I think. In this case nothing chronological would be amiss with Justin attributing the census to Saturninus in the
Syntagma; the gospel of Luke, however, would have been later adjusted (by adding 2.2, at least) to match up with the famous census under Quirinius instead. It has
appeared to me before that a proto-Luke has been salted at times with data from Josephus
en route to becoming the canonical text that we know.
I also note
this abstract, which would support your other option, that Justin himself did not compose the original treatise used in
Against Marcion:
Justin’s Advertisement of the Syntagma against All the Heresies
Geoffrey S. Smith
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199386789.003.0002
This chapter revisits a topic that has received much attention in scholarship: Justin’s role in the emergence of the heresiological tradition. Since Justin is often thought to have authored the earliest known heresy catalogue, the Syntagma against All the Heresies, he is credited with the “invention” of heresiology. This chapter, however, reevaluates Justin’s status as the founder of heresiology by arguing that he likely did not compose the Syntagma against All the Heresies. When he mentions the treatise in 1 Apology 26, he uses the language of advertisement, not of authorship. Despite the likelihood that Justin did not compose this earliest known heresy catalogue, he nonetheless plays an important role in the early heresiological tradition by promoting the treatise and making it available to a wide audience. Justin may not be the progenitor of the Christian heresiological tradition, but he certainly lent stability to it by popularizing one particular catalogue over and above others.
And Smith may be right: technically, Justin does not directly claim to have penned the Syntagma himself. That dative (ἡμῖν) is the key, it would seem: is the treatise by him or just in his possession?