(15 votes, average: 4.93 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous post I pointed out that some scholars, myself included, think that the original Gospel of Luke did not have the birth narrative recounted in chapters 1-2 (the annunciation of Mary’s virginal conception, the trip to Bethlehem from Nazareth, the worship of the shepherds, etc. etc.). In this view the Gospel started with what is now 1:1-4 and then the next verse was what is now 3:1, and the Gospel went from there.
I posted on this issue some years ago, but I think it’s worthwhile addressing it again in the context of the current thread, on just how “messy” the situation was in the first couple of centuries when different Gospels were all in circulation (not just our four), saying different things, and sometimes in different versions themselves. What’s the evidence that there was an earlier version of Luke without the familiar birth narrative (which, in case you don’t recall, differs hugely from Matthew’s).
One place to start to explain the matter is with what comes *after the birth narrative in Luke (as we have it today): the genealogy. I won’t repeat earlier posts I’ve published on this question, but I will summarize some of the key points:
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Yes, Chapter 3 does sound like the beginning. In the same way you can say John seems to end with Chapter 20. I just finished reading it in Modern Greek (long-time expat) and when I got to it, I thought I’d finished!
What are the earliest surviving fragments, manuscripts, or mention of verses from Luke 1 and 2?
They are in our earliest surviving manuscripts, but unfortunately those don’t start till the fourth century; we have references to the chapters, though, already by the years 200 or so in the writings of the church fathers.
“It is not clear why a genealogy of Joseph is given, since the whole point of a genealogy is the bloodline, and Jesus is not in the bloodline of this genealogy;”
Could it be that the person who added this genealogy got it from someone who believed that Joseph was Jesus’ father?
He didn’t get *this* genealogy from such a person, since this genealogy traces the line to Joseph. And if he had a genealogy of Jesus that did not go through Jospeh, he wouldn’t have thought of it as a genealogy of Jesus (since Joseph was the option), if you see what I mean.
No, I don’t follow. What I meant was that whoever added a genealogy of Jesus that goes through Joseph must have thought that Joseph was Jesus’ father.
Do you think the same person added the genealogy and the virgin birth story to Mark?
Sorry, we’re not understanding each other very well. That happens to me a lot…
1. I’m saying it’s *not* a genealogy of Jesus. He doesn’t belong to the geneaological line. It’s a genealogy of Joseph who– even at the end of the genealogy — is NOT related by genealogy to Jesus. 2. I’m not sure what you mean? Mark doens’t have a genealogy or virgin birth story. Are you asking whether the same person provided the genealogy and virgin birth story at are in Luke? I’m saying that the genealogy was in the original version of Luke and the virgin birth story was added later, but I don’t know by whom.
Sorry, It is my fault for not understanding.
1. I’m saying it’s *not* a genealogy of Jesus. He doesn’t belong to the geneaological line. It’s a genealogy of Joseph who– even at the end of the genealogy — is NOT related by genealogy to Jesus.
I get what you are saying now. Where I’m stumped is that a genealogy of Joseph would then end with Joseph having Jesus with Mary. So Jesus is apart of Joseph’s line. I may be thinking of this incorrectly.
2. I’m not sure what you mean? Mark doens’t have a genealogy or virgin birth story. Are you asking whether the same person provided the genealogy and virgin birth story at are in Luke? I’m saying that the genealogy was in the original version of Luke and the virgin birth story was added later, but I don’t know by whom.
Sorry! I meant Luke. I understand now that you are saying the virgin birth story was added but not the genealogy. So Luke 3 starts with John the Baptist and then adds in the genealogy (which Mark leaves out the genealogy).
Thanks for staying with me!
I’d never thought about that obvious point about Adam. Is it impressive that Jesus (or Joseph) can trace his genealogy back to the very first man? Well, not really, since everyone can do it.
How likely (or unlikely) is it that Luke traces Jesus’ genealogy through Joseph simply because the author of Luke believed Joseph was Jesus’ father? That would also explain the lack of a story about a virginal conception in the first edition of Luke.
Well, it’s possible, but he is called Jesus’ father later in the first two chapters.
Tangentially connected to this topic: in the past you’ve noted that the author of Luke does not seem particularly concerned with ensuring a consistent Christology in Luke-Acts. Acts has a few passages that support an exaltation Christology. Additionally, I think Paul can be shown to have probably held to both an incarnation AND exaltation Christology.
My question is, where else in the New testament do we find evidence that some early Christians embraced an exaltation christology rather than say, an adoptionist or incarnation view? And am I correct to assume that the development/timeline of those different understandings of how Jesus is divine is just as, if not messier, than the question of when certain gospel traditions arose?
You can see a fuller discussion nof this in my book How Jesus Became God. Short answer, some of the speeches of Acts (chs. 2 and 13); Rom 1:3-4 (“made son of God at the resurrection”); etc.
I’ve read some apologists’ mental gymnastics about the discrepancy in the genealogies and I can honestly say their explanations are far more intricate and difficult to fathom than sting theory’s advanced mathematics that unites quantum mechanics with general relativity.
Amazing how inventive a person can be when their entire view of scripture depends on it!
I have been reading about John the Baptist in the Gospels and he seems to have been very important to the writers (and their readers). In every version he initiates Jesus’s public ministry and then immediately declares his subordinate role to that of Jesus. This suggests he had many followers who still needed to be convinced of Jesus’s superiority decades later. How much do we really know about John? Is it likely that some of John’s teachings became attached to Jesus over the years and we are getting John as well as Jesus in the Gospels?
Also John’s birth story — that could have existed in oral tradition among John’s followers — and Luke used it to create a blood connection between the two. It’s fun to speculate but is there any evidence out there?
Yup, lots of discussion of that. If you look at what is actually said about John’s birth in Luke, e.g., it sure seems that the words of praise for him are spoken of the messiah himself…. Critics have long noted that the Gospel writers are going out of there way to subordinate John to Jesus (increasingly: by the time we get to Luke, he’s acknowledging Jesus’ superiority while they’re both still in the womb!) And given Acts 19 and the existence of the group called the Mandeans (still today), it looks pretty certain that there was “competition” between the followers of John and of Jesus (explaining why Christians wanted to stress that John was the “forerunner”)
Yes, that would explain why the Jerusalem church baptized people in the name of Jesus Christ: in order to differentiate their baptism from “John’s baptism”. There seems to be examples of that, for instance the first few verses in 19th chapter of the book of Acts.
James Tabor has some interesting books and YouTube videos about John the Baptist and Jesus prior to Jesus going to Jerusalem
Do you have a solution for the problem of giving a genealogy of Joseph and simultaneously Jesus not being son of Joseph? Do you think there was an early version of Luke where Jesus *was* son of Joseph?
I doubt it, but don’t know. I think there were two competing demands: show that Jesus is from the line of David and affirm that he was born of a virgin, and the need for both created a contradiction. Maybe I should post on that one…
The summary of the gospel in Acts 10:37 beginning with the baptism is preceded by Acts 10:36 “the word that he sent to the sons of Israel proclaiming the gospel of peace through Jesus Christ he is Lord of all”
Doesn’t that suggest some chapters of Luke preceding the baptism?
Ones where gabriel tells Mary “I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this gospel” or the angels tell the shepherds “I bring you the gospel that will cause great joy for all the people, today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord.”
Also when Luke says in Luke 3:23 “He was the son so it was thought of Joseph” – doesn’t that only make sense if he told us about the virgin birth?
I don’t see how you are reading it that way. Are you saying that anyone who reads Acts 10:34-37 would think that Peter is indicating things happened prior to the prcolamation of Jesus? Peter certainly would have thought that of course (he didn’t think that Jesus descended from heaven and started preaching), but I don’t see how someone would read the passage and think he had anything in mind but the preaching ministry of Jesus. He says that the “word” started after John the Baptist had been preaching.
In Acts 10:37 he says the rhema (word) began to spread after the baptism of John but in Acts 10:36 he talks about the logon (word) god sent to the sons of Israel.
“the logon he sent to the sons of Israel proclaiming the gospel of peace by Jesus Christ—he is Lord of all”.
If god sending the word is part of Luke’s summary of his own gospel in Acts 10:36-42 then it better indicates chapters 1-2 than chapter 3 which just begins with John preaching in the wilderness.
Are there glaring stylistic differences in the authorship of the first two chapters from the balance of the book in greek?
The first two chapters sound very much like the Septuagint in style; the rest, not.
Is the style of the book of acts in Greek the same as the first 2 chapters of Luke or the same style as the rest of Luke or a totally different style from the gospel of Luke?
The style of chs. 1-2 is much more like the Septuagint (the Greek OT) than the rest of Luke, but that could be because they author himself decided to imitate a biblical style when it came to describing a miraculous birth (as in some passages in the OT); or it could be because it comes from a different author.
Luke is a bit strange in that it’s not entirely clear if John was the one who baptized Jesus or not.
If it was John that baptized Jesus, it seems odd that he would send disciples to ask if he is the “one to come” after seeing the heaven’s open up during it.
I tend to agree about the first 2 chapters not being in the original composition, instead just faithfully following Mark (which Luke seems to do more closely than Matthew does.)
I have a similar suspicion about Matthew’s genealogy and infancy narrative, which is clearly written to make Jesus resemble Moses.
Do you think boredom could become a significant problem for a great many Epicureans?
It seems to be aimed at peace of mind/serenity which I think most people seriously undervalue? But I wonder to what degree Epicureanism is attractive is because it seems like it would relieve stress.
But once one has successfully relieved stress and become a good Epicurean, then boredom may loom as a serious danger.
I guess my point is that Epicureanism (and Stoicism for that matter) can be very therapeutic for many people but that may not necessarily mean it’s a (more or less) complete description of the most satisfying overall way to live.
I suppose if someone finds times of reflection, reading, thinking, and conversation with good friends and loving family members boring, while all one’s needs are met, then I guess so! But I don’t know that there are any records of it…
Might the catalyst for creating a miraculous conception story — provided *independently* by both Luke AND Matthew — not to mention the Pantera legend per Celsus/Origen, have been that it was common knowledge at the time that Jesus was illegitimate? In portraying him as the long-awaited Messiah it appears apologists had to deal with ignominious bookends for his life, entry as well as exit!
Perhaps, like his baptism by John, Jesus’ unsavory nascence was simply too widely known to be ignored and, therefore, demanded some kind of ennobling explanation. Claiming that Mary had actually been knocked up by God is an obvious two-fer.
As for both authors creating a genealogy for Jesus through Joseph (though this, like noting that Romans *did* build the roads, may go without saying 😉), wouldn’t the point have been to provide him with OT prophesy bona fides?
Yup, that is often argued. I have scholar friends who think that’s it.
It’s good to know I’m not the only heretic. 🙂
I should add that for yours truly all the Son of David, Immaculate Conception, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Out of Egypt, etc., orthodoxy hoops, so painstakingly devised by Matthew and Luke, are pointless irrelevancies.
As someone who inclines to an adoptionist Christology (at the Baptism), the Incarnation issue — including genealogical provenance — is entirely moot. The man, Jesus of Nazareth, became the Son of God because he *chose* to take up that task. (Be careful what you wish for! 😮)
Nor was Jesus the only one in whom “the Word became flesh.” IMHO Siddhartha Gautama, who lived and died five centuries earlier, was probably another such prophet (in the “spokesperson,” not “fortuneteller,” sense of the word.)
There have undoubtedly been others. The one, true God doesn’t have a *chosen* people!
I suspect, however, that Jesus was the only one who ended up suffering so unimaginably horrific a fate for his trouble. Which is why he was uniquely vindicated by being raised from the dead (spiritually not physically) by the Father to appear to some who had followed him during his life. 😇
Are the genealogies in the NT intent in proving, or at least venturing the claim, that Jesus is the son of God and the son of David or was their main or first purpose to be imitative of the genealogies in the HB, like all the prophecies that seek to establish Jesus’ legitimacy as the Messiah of Israel? Or was there a dual purpose from the outset? Perhaps we cannot know this.
How do the NT genealogies compare to Greco-Roman ones?
Please remind me which of your books deal(s) with Gospels contemporary to the synoptics that were not chosen as canonical. I am curious to see if those discarded Gospels tell of events or sayings which “should” or “could” have belonged in the canonical Gospels.
None of our non-canonical Gospels are contemporary with the Synoptics; they start showing up in the early second century.
As to the genealogies, Matthew and Luke appear to have several different functions. Some things are obviously in common — the desire to trace Jesus as messiah (son of David) back to David (through different blood lines! Solomon or Nathan!) and the decision to trace the line to Joseph while admitting he wasn’t related to Jesus by blood. But other things are very different — where the genealogies occur in the Gospel, how far back they go, and so the ultimate point (Jesus son of David vs. Jesus son of Adam son of God).
>Most of the central themes of chs. 1-2 – including the familial ties of John … are completely absent from the rest of Luke
The familial ties of John are used to Typologically link John’s birth to Isaac’s birth. John points to Jesus as the Messiah as he fulfils the “voice out of the Wilderness” in Isaiah. The “Wilderness” is home of both Ishmael and Edom. Ishmael wanders the Wildnerness as do the Israelites. Jesus Nativity is paralleled with the Magi being replaced by Shepherds, as He is “Lamb of God”! The curious crossover from Isaac’s birth to “Wilderness” is confusing but there is no doubt why the story is laid out — it is to produce continuity. It is possible that Luke with 1-2 was considered incomplete and filled in, but essentially link Jesus to Son of God — God being the Heavenly father (like El or Brahma) while the Earthly Father is Abraham. The effort made reinforcemes strongly both Isaiah as well as the Trinity. The Earthly Son is Isha.
Perhaps the reason for including Joseph’s geneology is to make the connection to David, which is the reason given for the trip to Bethelehem?
Yup, it’s for the bloodline to go back to David, since the messiah is to be a descendant of David (“son of David). But the problem is that Jesus is not in that bloodline, according to the genealogy itself!
It’s certainly possible that Lk 3-24 existed without chaps 1-2. The style of Lk 1-2 makes me wonder that. The Greek of Lk 1-2 is so Semitic and different from Lk 3-24. And chaps 1-2 have a sequence of episodes progressively building on one another, unlike most of Lk 3-24 which are stand-alone independent pericopae. And the 4 canticles in Lk 1-2 are quite different as forms than Lk 3-24.
But OTOH, Lk 1-2 contains so many major Lukan redactional themes that it’s difficult to imagine different authors. Lk 1-2 emphasizes women, like Lk 3-24. Lk 1-2 emphasizes a Great Reversal of the poor and mighty, like Lk 3-24. Lk 1-2 emphasizes the Holy Spirit, like Lk 3-24 & Acts. Lk 1-2 starts in Jerusalem at the Temple, major themes in Lk 3-24 & Acts. Luke 19:38 is a strong echo of Luke 2:14. And “light for the Gentiles” in Luke 2:32 is then masterfully rementioned in Acts 13:47; 26:23.
Each Gospel has noticeable redactional themes expressing specific theological emphases. So many of these redactional themes in Lk 1-2 are consistent with Lk 3-24 and yet different from Mark, Matt, and John. How do you account for this?
Some account for it by saying Luke wrote the second edition. Others point out that if someone wanted to revise Luke’s Gospel in particular it would make sense that it would be someone who agreed with Luke’s major themes and so continued to emphasize them.
There could be a goal in Luke 1 to put Isaiah front and center and to do a George Lucas style prequel — Annakin in the Wilderness of the Nabatians? — the story of John’s birth told in a way similar to that of Isaac. But with the idea that he would point to Jesus. It is important to note that Mark 1 has already laid the ground work for this that Jesus is the Third Element in the Trinity, the Son of God, who fulfils Isaiah. Yet, Luke 2, Jesus is revealed to the shepherds as he is the “Lamb of God”. Luke may have known both Mark AND Matthew (or a Q-Source that introduces the early life of Jesus). So, Luke further develops the story in keeping with the later narrative with a Biblical special birth typologically based on Isaac’s, and a visit by Mary ordained by the Angel of God where Isaiah plays out.
Baptism through Trinity for Salvation is the fundamental new idea introduced in Mark 1, and the birth stories carry this further by introducing the earthly link to Abraham, Isaac via a birth typology.
Bart, do you agree that labeling Mary as a virgin instead of a young woman was a mistranslation? What are your thoughts on ANY of the translations genealogies considering this?
The Greek word means “virgin” though it could mean “young woman.” The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 (as opposed to the Greek translation Matthew is citing) is “young woman” not “virgin.” So Matthew is simply quoting the version (Greek) he knows, and in his account it’s clear he thinks mary was a virgin.
Another “Lord of spirits” podcast reference: on one episode (too lazy to look it up) they claimed that Matthew was making an allusion and not a prophecy when he quoted Isaiah 7:14. According to them, this Isaiah passage was read frequently in Synagogue services. Any Jewish Christian reading the Matthew passage would clearly know this and understand that Matthew is “alluding” to Christ’s virgin conception rather than making a blatant prophecy. There, virgin/young woman problem fixed! Not sure if this “it’s an allusion not a prophecy” method explains why Matthew has Jesus riding on both a colt and a donkey in fulfillment of yet another scriptural passage …
From my point of view as a genealogist. Both genealogy tracings are flawed. First, I doubt very much that there where records at that time available thousand years back in time. If Jesus was born as a king a big maybe, but he was not. OK he was a decedent of King David so was everyone else in ancient Palestine. The gospel of Matthew has 29 generations including David that is about the right number of generations. Usually, we say about 30 generations in thousand years. However, our friend Luke has 43 generation. That means Jesus was born around 400 CE. I have a foremother her name was Melkorka she was born abt. 910 CE her son Ólafur was born abt. 930 CE. The tree from her son to me is 29 generations. There is no way Luke can be close to right. Also, nearly all (some are immigrants) Icelander are descendants of the last Catholic Bishop (1484-1550) in Iceland. So you see it does not take a long time to be a descendant of someone.