Originally Posted by Euphen

From the same article:

"But this is all moot. For in fact Tertullian does not link Sentius Saturninus with the census in Luke 2:1, as is commonly supposed by those who ignore the context of this passage. Rather, he says censuses (plural, not singular) prove that Jesus had brothers, in defense of Luke 8:19-21. Since Tertullian believed Jesus was the first born, just as Luke says he was, there could not be any record of his brothers in the census of the nativity. Therefore, Tertullian could not possibly have been thinking of the census during which Jesus was born. So he may well mean another Sentius Saturninus (an ancestor of the other), who was governor of Syria in A.D. 19-21 (Tacitus, Annals 2.76-81), a plausible time before which Jesus' siblings would have been born. For the sentence sed et census constat actos sub Augusto nunc in Iudaea per Sentium Saturninum, apud quos genus eius inquirere potuissent, can be translated "But it is also well known that censuses were conducted under the Augustus in that time in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, consulting which they can investigate his family."[15.3] But even if Tertullian meant brothers by a previous marriage, and thus had in mind the previous Sentius Saturninus, this still would not be the census during which Jesus was born, since Jesus had to be born later to a subsequent wife of Joseph. And Tertullian in that case would simply be bluffing, since no census under the first Saturninus would have counted the inhabitants of Judaea (as shown above and below)."

Originally Posted by Euphen

I came across this passage from Tertullian’s “Against Marcion” while reading Carrier’s article “Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ’s Birth,” and was wondering if someone more knowledgeable than me could shed some light on it:

“But there is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ.”

I am especially interested to hear what mythicists think of this. I have read some of the arguments on this forum that have interested me the historicity of Jesus, which before I took for granted.

Would census records in this time be detailed enough to show what Tertuallian claims, that Jesus had brothers, and would Tertullian have had access to such records? If so, unless Tertullian misunderstood something, or is simply lying, this would seem to be evidence for the historicity of Jesus.