Loading...Did Luke originally have the story of Jesus’ virgin birth?
In my previous post I gave reasons for suspecting that Luke did not originally have chs. 1-2 (the birth narratives), but that it started (after what is now the preface in 1:1-4) with what is now 3:1.
One of the reasons it is hard to know for certain is because we simply don’t have much hard evidence. Our two earliest two manuscripts of Luke, P75 and P45, are lacking portions of Luke, including the first two chapters. We can’t say whether they originally had them or not. Our first manuscript with portions of the opening chapters is the third century P4. But our earliest patristic witness is over a century earlier. As it turns out, the witness is the heresiarch Marcion, and as is well known he didn’t have the first two chapters!
As early as Irenaeus’s Adversus Haereses (1. 27. 2) Marcion was accused of excising the first two chapters of his Gospel because they did not coincide with his view that Jesus appeared from heaven in the form of an adult man in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar – that is that he was not actually born into the world. But who is to say that Irenaeus, Tertullian, and their successors were right, that these are chapters that Marcion excised from his account?
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!
“Luke originally seems to have portrayed Jesus as one who was appointed Son of God at his baptism and empowered then for his ministry.” That sounds right, if you are looking at from a plain royalty standpoint. You can be a Son of God (appointed king) but still need to acquire the appointed territory, or the approval of the people in that territory.
“The spirit comes upon him in the form of a dove, and the voice comes from heaven.”
I think we are just seeing standard N Syrian (Harran area) regnal ceremony here in a Levant context? There’s a quote I found for that area, where it says basically “no one ascends to the throne without the dove.” The dove meaning Ashtar/Isis and variations.
And a ‘voice from the heavens’ can simply be someone on a hill declaring his ceremonial intent for Jesus as successor (his bio father, possibly the Semetic king-of-kings of a confederacy, who chose a nikah mutah handmaiden to have a Jewish tribal heir.)
I’m focusing on learning any Martu Arab customs (including Mesopotamian) and their branches — the Arameans and Hyksos right now because I think I recognize *syncretic* regnal customs in the Gospels.
Great detail supporting the “adoptionist” position – which, as I understand the history, officially became heretical with the adoption in 325 AD/CE at Emperor Constantine’s Council of Nicaea of the homoousios (of one substance), anti-Arian, and proto-Trinitarian conception of the Nicene Creed.
So, between words (thoughts & prayers) and deeds, or faith and works, do I understand you properly to be coming down heretically on the side of the latter?
I’m not a Christian so I suppose technically I can’t be classified as a “heretic.” Adoptionism was not one of the options on the table at Nicea though; it was seen as a heretical view by all sides there. The debate was over whether Christ was a subordinate divinity who came into existence at some point or was instead equal with God in every imaginable way and co-eternal with him. Neither side denied that he was divine and with God in the beginning and created the universe before becoming human.
Hi, I’ve been curious as to what is the critical scholarly position on the traditional Christian claim that the early Christian communities were founded by dedicated missionaries who were ordained by people in an unbroken chain of ordinations going all the way back to the apostles or Paul? I remember you saying you think it probably was mostly just ordinary people in their ordinary social connections hearing about and spreading the word and forming communities on their own. I know that it would be hard to demonstrate but what do you think is the likelihood of the notion of an unbroken chain of ordination among the leaders of Christian communities? Considering the Second temple origin of Christianity and apparently the importance of Semikah in second temple Judaism with it’s supposed unbroken line of ordination of rabbis via laying of hands going back to Moses and since a similar concept exists in Christianity in apostolic succession, might have the first generation of Christians had a similar system of authority and qualifications thereof? Considering Paul’s authentic letters mentioning Peter visiting Antioch and his battles with opposing missionaries, it seems unlikely Paul was an exception in being a missionary?
Most communities could not have been established by apostles, since most of the original disciples spoke Aramaic and probably never left Israel, and so far as we know, in the first two or three centuries most did not even try to claim apostolic succession. Even when Paul writes the letter to the Romans — possibly the largest Xn church at the time — it’s clear that he himself has never been there, Peter appears not to be there, and … who knows who started the chruch.
The idea of an unbroken line of rabbinic ordination is also a later tradition, put forth by later rabbis. None of the early soyrces (e.g., Josephus) says anythihng about it. It would be ibnteresting to seen how the the Jewish and Christian traditions of succession developed in relation to each other.disabledupes{0ae5718994df56cfc80d81eaa883242f}disabledupes
Professor Ehrman, why do you think it is that here in the US we tend to favor the birth story in Luke over the one in Matthew and are there other countries that tend to favor the Matthew story over the Luke version?
Good quesiton. I guess I didn’t know that Americans did prefer one to the other! But I guess the trip to Nazareth, no room in the in, etc. has a lot of narrative power. (But so do the wisemen)
The Luke version was popularized in the US by none other than Linus in “A Charlie Brown Christmas”
My concern here is that Luke is likely “the second or third Gospel” available in Koine Greek. We are continuing to follow the premise, “Paul only knew of the risen Christ” and “Mark wrote far away and after 66 AD”. Mark knowing Peter being questionable. But Mark is what Luke’s Baptism is based on.
I do think that we need to look at Zoroaster’s Baptism by Vohu Mana per Dr. Price “may derive from Zoroastrian traditions of the inauguration of Zoroaster’s ministry. Son of a Vedic Priest, Zoroaster immerses himself in the river for purification, and as he comes up from the water, the archangel Vohu Mana appears to him, proffering a cup and commissions to him to bear the tidings of Ahura Mazda, whereupon the evil one Ahriman tempts him to abandon this call”. The Camel(ushtra) Hair and Belt of John being noteworthy. Mark was likely well read and drank from many waters.
Did Luke revert to older Eastern tradition, salvation from sin, through Holy Immersion and by Trinity? Yet the scene represents a religiously inclusive confluence across all four gospels. A Third Element of Trinity cannot be a later appointment, rather an Incarnation.
Doesn’t “ho eklelegmenos” mean “the chosen one” rather then “my chosen one”. That is, the one whom God has been chosen this time for a mission happens to also be his son.
This fits better with John the Baptist’s introduction of Jesus as “one coming more powerful than I, I am unworthy to untie the straps of his sandals.”
There’s nothing in Luke detailing why Jesus in particular would be chosen to be god’s son. But Luke does tell the story of john the baptist preparing for the arrival of “the Lord”.
Also Luke doesn’t refer to Adam as the son of god. He calls “the one of god” or “he of god”. Probably wording the genealogy this way precisely to avoid referring Adam as “the son of god”.
Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἐκλελεγμένος, αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε = This is my son, the one who is chosen.
7 τοῦ Μαθουσαλὰ τοῦ Ἑνὼχ τοῦ Ἰάρετ τοῦ Μαλελεὴλ τοῦ Καϊνὰμ38 τοῦ Ἐνὼς τοῦ Σὴθ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ τοῦ θεοῦ. In each case, the common use of the genitive to mean “son of” (from the beginning of the geneaology).
Maybe this is coming, but are there any textual reasons to suspect that the first two chapters were written by a different, or the same, author? (style, grammar, vocabulary)
The writing style of these two chapters is more “Septuagintal” (that is, more like the Greek translation of the OT, with Hebrew-like phrases and grammar), unlike the rest of the Gospel.
I agree with you that “today I have begotten you” seems to be the earliest form of Lk 3:22, but for reasons additional to yours. “Today” is a key redactional word (Lk 2:11; 4:21; 5:26; 11:3; 19:5,9; 23:43) for Luke who is shifting from the impending apocalypticism of Mark (& Matt) towards more realized eschatology (Lk 11:20; 12:56; 17:20-21) but not yet as far as John. The author’s intrinsic tendency to use “today” is what we should expect in Lk 3:22.
Also, we tend to expect an Evangelist to record key quotes from their sources with verbatim accuracy, but over and over, we see the Evangelists do *not* do that. Instead, they record the gist but never precisely verbatim. This happens with major key statements throughout the Jesus traditions regarding the baptism, Peter’s confession (Mk 8:29; Mt 16:16; Lk 9:20), transfiguration (Mk 9:7; Mt 17:5; Lk 9:35; 2 Pet 1:17), inscription on the cross (Mk 15:26; Mt 27:37; Lk 23:38; Jn 19:19; Diatessaron), Jesus’ last words (Mk 15:34-west, Mt 27:49; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30, GPeter). We should expect Luke to *not* record the verbatim statement in Mark. (It’s also another reason why I think Mk:15:34-west is the initial text.)
Thoughts?
Fair enough. But in 3:22 it’s not a redactional addition since it’s in the text that’s being quoted and Luke, in this case, has decided to quote it.
True, except I wonder if the full quote of Ps 2:7 in Lk 3:22 is the catalyst that prompted the evangelist to utilize “today” throughout his gospel, even into the birth narratives at Lk 2:11.
Hard to say, I guess.
It seems to me that “Substitutionary Atonement” (a bizarre doctrine that is manifestly incompatible with ANY conception of justice — even our own, much less a divine one) rules out an “Incarnation Christology,”
Orthodoxy holds that only the death penalty will appease Yahweh’s wrath at the insolence of the first man and finally put an end to his psychopathic grudge of “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.” 😱
But how could God’s thirst for vengeance be sated by the blood sacrifice of a victim who *isn’t* the offender’s progeny at all — no matter how many generations removed — but a preexistent, divine being who came into this world specifically predestined for the purpose?
An Adoptionist christology OTOH — whereby Jesus was the naturally-born descendant of Adam who *chose* to become God’s emissary/prophet/“Son,” and then paid a horrific price for his service — at least logically follows.
Further, a Jesus who *became* the “Son of God” at his Baptism would account for both the pronouncement by the “voice from heaven“ and his subsequent acquisition of miraculous powers.
How can the “Substitutionary Atonement” and “Incarnation Christology” doctrines be reconciled?
I don’t think there’s a logical problem with understanding that Christ is a pre-existent divine being who became incarnate and that he then died as an atonement for sins.
I have no problem “understanding that Christ is a pre-existent divine being who became incarnate.” Indeed, I believe that.
Nor am I surprised that the presence of the “Son of the God” was so vexatious to worldly authorities — both secular and, especially, religious — that it was probably inevitable, “that he then died.” (In fact I’d say: was legally murdered.)
It’s as “an atonement for sins” that is IMHO a non-starter — because it entirely contradicts any remotely plausible conception of “Divine Justice.”
What kind of depraved deity takes offense at a transgression by a being — whom HE created without even the *capacity* for mens rea — becoming outraged when his innocent and undiscerning creation acquires for himself what he was not given to begin with?
Worse, what kind of monstrous “god” would wreak vengeance not only on the putative offender, but on ALL of his (necessarily blameless) progeny — in perpetuity!! — explicitly boasting of pronouncing a death sentence on his children, grandchildren and great grandchildren?? (Just for starters… 🤯)
Is this why there’s no “logical problem” in Yahweh accepting “Substitutionary Atonement” by the blood sacrifice of the *only* person who was NOT descended from the Original Sinner?
Question for you Dr. Ehrman: If Jesus was indeed born of the virgin Mary and was the son of God, why wasn’t he ever referred to as a demi-god? I believe in Greek religious practices there were numerous instances of Greek deities impregnanting women and those offspring were I believe called demi-gods. Yet Jesus, said to fathered by God seems to have never been referred to as a demi-god. Just curious, given the Greek gentile culture still prevalent in that era, why that never happened?
I suppose originally it was because “demi-God” was not part of Jewish vocabulary, and the earliest followers who set the standards for what was to come used more familiar terms, like Son of God, Messiah, Lord, etc.
Are there any Marcionites around? The more I read about him, the more sense he makes. Marcionite churches need to make a comeback (except for celibacy and not eating beef and pork).
None explicitly that I know of. They wern’t though celibate nad didn’t object to meat.