Loading...Is it possible that Luke’s Gospel originally lacked the story of the Virgin Birth, but that it was added later in order to make the book more “orthodox”? That’s the question I’m pursing in this thread, based on a paper I delivered to a group of NT scholars 20 years ago.
******************************
It appears that in the earliest form of Luke’s Gospel, what we have is an account that locates Jesus’ adoption/appointment to sonship, and its accompanying empowerment, at the baptism, when God declared “Today I have begotten you.” It is true that throughout the work of Luke – Acts there are other kinds of christological traditions preserved as well – especially in the speeches of Acts. But many of these are also adoptionistic, even though they appear to embody an even earlier adoptionistic notion that it was at the resurrection, not the baptism, that God conferred a special status upon Jesus and invested him with a special power.
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!
“Even though virtually all of our earliest witnesses attest the quotation of Psalm 2:7 “You are my son, today I have begotten you,” the vast majority of manuscripts (all of our Greek ones apart from codex Bezae) give the other, more theologically innocuous and more synoptically harmonized rendering.”
I am confused what “our earliest witnesses” refers to here if we are not talking about early Greek MS. Could you please elaborate?
Good question. I’m referring to the chruch fathers who quote the verse, prior to the time our surviving manuscripts were produced. I have a full discussion of the matter in my book Orthodox Corruption of Scripture if you’re interested in seeing the fuller analysis.
It’s hard for me to envision the Jews thinking of Yahweh as either taking human form or having a son, but Gentile Christians were probably conditioned to accept such ideas from their pagan myths. Do you think the turn away from adoptionism may have been influenced by the church becoming more Gentile and less Jewish, and therefore more open to the idea of Jesus as God, or Son of God?
I don’t know — in Genesis 3 God is walking through the Garden of the cool of the evening and in Genesis 16 he has a lovely meal with two of his angels and Abraham. You may want to check out also Alan Segal’s book Two Powers in Heaven, an account of another God sitting next to YHWH on his throne (known from rabbinic sources). BUT, with that said, yup, I think incarnation theologies did seem to be a lot more palatable on gentile turf, where the idea was less unusual.
Perhaps the Nativity story and the other changes were a response to Matthew? Proto-Luke would have known only Mark. This neatly sidesteps the controversy over whether Luke knew Matthew. Yes…and no.
No. You still have the rest of the Gospel.
No. You still have the rest of the Gospel.
I pointed out these adoptionistic texts to someone, but that person (I think many conservative christians) interprets these texts merely as re-affirmations of Jesus’ divinity. So, according to their view God came in the flesh and the other (adoptionistic) texts came to be seen as public (re)affirmations of re-declarations of Jesus’ deity. So whether or not, or for whatever reason Luke or someone else added the story of the virgin birth to the account, it certainly affects the way people read the adoptionistic texts.
I remember you saying somewhere that the letters of Paul existed before the first written accounts of any of the gospels. In Romans 1 Paul says that Jesus was appointed the son of God by the resurrection from the dead. So it seems that the earliest view of Jesus’ divinity was some kind of adoptionistic view, although we can’t know for sure if the idea of a virgin birth already circulated within the oral christian tradition at that time? We do know however that Paul didn’t know about it, because he simply said that Jesus was born of a woman. So the idea of a virgin birth seems (to me) to be a later concept.
In Romans 1:3-4 Paul appears to be quoting an earlier creed that he had inherited, possibly quoting it because it was well known and he wanted his (unknown-to-him Roman audience) to know that he had an “orthodox” view of Christ right at the outset of the letter (since he is defending his views throughout it). Many scholrs have thought he added the phrase “in power” to make it (basically) acceptable for his own views. It appears that heis more inclined to a view like Phil. 2:6-10 that X was a pre-existent divine being who became human, after which God “highly” exalted him. But, yes, conservative Xns typically intrpret the adoptionistic text as being affirmations instead of declarations, despite the wording often used (“Today” I have “begotten” you…., e.g.)
That phrase “in power” then sounds like it can work both ways: or you read that Jesus is officially declared the Son of God for the first time (like I thought the text said) or you read it like it’s not really the first time he’s being declared the Son of God, but that it’s the first time he’s declared the Son of God AND has been given power, as kind of a final affirmation of his deity. In other words, that phrase “in power” seems to obscure the meaning of the text.
Your suggestion is very interesting. It then looks like a hybrid version of this whole discussion, because you can make a theological case that Jesus was born as God in the flesh, but Mary didn’t have to be a virgin for that. Could it even be that it gives room to the possibility that Jesus was born of Joseph’s seed? Reason for asking is because we have different genealogies. By the way, I noticed how easy it is to confuse supernatural conception with virgin birth. I think it’s the result of 31 years of reading the bible through a conservative christian lens (I’m 33 now, still deconstructing).
Paul’s use of the phrase “in power” suggests that Paul thought the resurrected Jesus had been made an extremely powerful being at, or shortly after, his resurrection. If William Hartmann’s theory of Paul’s conversion experience is correct, that an exploding meteor is what Paul and his traveling companions experienced, then that would explain why Paul thinks of Jesus as extremely powerful. It would explain Paul’s temporary blindness and the `scales’ that later came off of his eyes; it would explain why the light Paul and his companions saw was brighter than the sun; the blast of wind would explain why Paul and his companions were knocked to the ground, and the thunderous sound would explain the `voice’ that Paul thought he heard. The large meteorite that exploded over Chelyabinsk Russa had all of those properties. It damaged over 7,200 buildings in the vicinity and injured over 1,490 people. Perhaps Paul’s meteorite wasn’t so strong as the Chelyabinsk meteorite, but it would have been an event that Paul would never forget. It would also be something he would have told people about, repeatedly, wherever he went. It explains Paul’s zeal and why he was a true believer.
That’s one hell of a theory. Interesting. We know from the Old Testament that thunder is often associated with God’s voice. What I don’t understand is how these people, who believed that God spoke to them, got the words!
Can the two first chapters of Matthew also have been added later, or are the many references to the scriptures too typical of Matthew?
Some have thought so, but I don’t think there are any good arguments for it. The themes, ideas, etc. are consistent with Matthew’s views otherwise. (e.g., the “wise men” story. Jewish scholars *know* the Scriptures but aren’t intereseed in following it)
Hi Dr Ehrman apologies if I’ve completely misunderstood bur when reading your book recently (which i’ve just started) how Jesus became God. Would it be right in saying you think that Matthew and Mark (and maybe luke?) have an exaltation view of Jesus in that they think he was exalted at his baptism or his ressurection. Yet I think it was in your lectures you did where you may have also said that Jesus is doing miracles beforehand so this obviously raises the question of how can Jesus be doing miracles if he’s not God? Which is why I think you said in John the author has higher Christology of him to solve this issue where he is the prexsistent God incarnate yet (providing I’ve not completely misunderstood what you have said.) If Matthew and Luke did create this dillema by claiming that Jesus was exalted to divinity, whivh John then tries to solve with his higher christology. surely Matthew, Mark (and possibly Luke) would have noticed such a blatant plot hole (if thats the write terminology) in their gospel when writing it even if we do (which I do) reject the inerrancy of scripture?
Doing miracles is not an indication that a person is God; it is an indication that a person is unusually empowered by God. Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Peter, Paul, etc. all do miracles, but that doesn’t mean they were God.
ThERe was a Bewitched episode when husband Darren is sent to the Plymouth Rock days. Also it is 11Celsius in Bethlehem, Israel now
I think it is the case that Luke’s baptism story originally said, “Today I have begotten you” and the birth story was added later. But what do you think of the possibility that the baptism story in Mark originally said “Today I have begotten you” but was changed so quickly that it isn’t in any of the earliest surviving manuscripts?
I don’t know of any evidence of it.
Quote from the post:
“Even though virtually all of our earliest witnesses attest the quotation of Psalm 2:7 “You are my son, today I have begotten you,” the vast majority of manuscripts (all of our Greek ones apart from codex Bezae) give the other, more theologically innocuous and more synoptically harmonized rendering: ‘You are my beloved son, in you I am well pleased.’”
Who or what were “our earliest witnesses?” The oldest manuscripts themselves?
The oldest witnesses to the text are church fathers who were quoting it prior to the time our earliest manuscripts were produced. *Their* manuscripts had the reading apparently.
Would Jesus have been considered a mamzer? Could any of the stories have been to legitimize his parentage?
Yes, in my ocurse I point out that some of the NT texts suggest he was illigitimate.
So, in Psalms, David claimed God declared to him he was the son of god, making an enduring Jewish connection of “son of god” to their messiah. Among Jews, the earliest proto-Christian movement would not have had to explain or defend that connection. However, as the movement tried to spread to gentiles, the to-be-converted may well have asked what does having oil on his head have to do with becoming a demigod? Do scholars see any evidence the infancy narratives were more likely developed for the gentiles world?
Usually they think Luke more than Matthew, since Luke stresses he is born of a virgin “so that” he will be called son of God.
Is there any difference in style, grammar, wording, between Luke’s chapters 1 and 2, that could be not attributed to Luke?
“…the change became popular in modern times, especially among English translators of the text.”
This is fascinating news to me. When I was a young adult, the ESV was published (2001), allegedly taking the RSV and editing it in accordance to the “original” texts. The church denomination to which I belonged then adopted the ESV as the unofficially official translation for knowing what the Bible literally says. Being a Biblical literalist denomination, they usually quote the ESV.
However, in this instance, the KJV had the original meaning of John 1:18, and the updates up to the ASV and RSV still had it. It was in the latter half of the 20th Century, the NRSV (including the NRSVue), NIV, and NASB adopted the Alexandrian corruption. Not including TLB, though. Then, newer translations such as ESV and The Message were based on the corrupted version.
It doesn’t make a difference to the theology—as mentioned, the author of John believed in Jesus being God since the creation of the world—but it gives the lie to the claim that Biblical literalists are faithful to God’s unchanging Word.
Is acts 2:38 in “yet according to Acts 2:38 Jesus became the Lord and Christ at the resurrection (Let all the house of Israel therefore know that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.)”
Meant to be Acts 2:36
One of the verse references I *always* get wrong…. Thanks.