tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post5223326051629409210..comments2023-06-15T09:41:19.355-05:00Comments on NT/History Blog: Situational Context for Critical ExegesisBill Heromanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-57355061317003674272021-10-16T01:05:08.567-05:002021-10-16T01:05:08.567-05:00Hey, James. Not sure how I missed this comment. Wh...Hey, James. Not sure how I missed this comment. What I am saying about the ten-year pregnancy is that said absurdity should be the logical ramification of reading Luke 2 as if it were happening during the year 6 CE. Ergo, I did not say anyone holds this view; rather, I suggested they have not thought it through. <br /><br />Now, I have since learned that some argue "Herod" in Luke 1 could refer to Archelaus, but this shocking maneuver (aside from being quite a stretch) strikes me as something like removing a mountain for the sake of a molehill. So much revisionism for the sake of one little name drop. Surely the parsimonious verdict would be that Luke was purporting events during Herod's era and simply cited the wrong name.<br /><br />In support of my own larger point, I should have added that Luke evidently knows nothing about the actual census of Quirinius in 6 CE because Quirinius did not require Galileans to be registered in Judea. In Josephus, Quirinius registered property ownership within Archelaus's ethnarchy. In Luke, not only Joseph but "all" had to travel to be counted (a head count, not a property assessment). Thus, whether real or imagined, Luke's census does not align with Quirinius's census. Moreover, Luke's census takes place in a unified kingdom, implying that Herod the Great is still alive in his story world.<br /><br />In all these ways, the overall representation reveals far more about Luke's vision of the past, than a passing and dubious reference to a single name. That is my point. People who take the simple reference as an establishment of temporal setting are not only missing the forest for one tree, they are unjustifiably making one tree into a forest.Bill Heromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-53060503553752685132021-08-22T03:47:28.272-05:002021-08-22T03:47:28.272-05:00I am not aware of any commentators suggesting that...I am not aware of any commentators suggesting that Luke gave Mary a decade-long pregnancy, rather than simply being wrong about the census. Who exactly holds the views you are arguing against here? James F. McGrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647noreply@blogger.com