Loading...In my previous post, ostensibly on the genealogy of Luke, I pointed out that there are good reasons for thinking that the Gospel originally was published – in a kind of “first edition” – without what are now the first two chapters, so that, after the Preface of 1:1-4, the very beginning was what is now 3:1 (this is many centuries, of course, before anyone started using chapters and verses). If that’s the case, Luke was originally a Gospel like Mark’s that did not have birth and infancy narratives. These were added later, in a second edition (either by the same author or by someone else).
If that’s the case then the Gospel began with John the Baptist and his baptism of Jesus, followed by the genealogy which makes better sense here, at the beginning, than it does in the third chapter once the first two are added.
But is there any hard evidence that a first edition began without the first two chapters? One of the reasons it is so hard to say is because we simply don’t have much hard evidence. Our two earliest manuscripts of Luke, P75 and P45, are fragmentary, 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
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!
In the forthcoming book I largely sidestep the issue of whether it was originally part of Luke, but it was fascinating to spend quite a bit of time last academic year working on the question of whether we can use Mandaean sources as well as Christian to recover the infancy story that the Baptist’s followers told.
Do we have any idea whenthe birth/infancy narratives were added to Luke?
I suppose it would have to have been in the first half of the second century.
The last several articles (and quite interesting articles they are) in this blog have been about the birth and paternity of Jesus, and I have a (hopefully) quick question. All of the quotations from the period have been from men, but issues of virgin births and women past their child-bearing years giving birth would seem to be things on which men and women might have very different opinions. Do we know what the early Christian women thought about these issues?
Nope. Unfortunately, all of our early sources appear to be written by men. Even when they report what women said, thought, and did, it’s men saying it, from their perspective.
Did Marcion actually argue that the first two chapters were spurious additions? If there were indeed two versions of Luke in circulation, one with those chapters and one without, Marcion would surely have become aware of it by the time he became a major leader.
More generally, how sure can we be that Irenaeus was reporting Marcion’s views accurately? I’ve looked at a fair number of theological disputes, and in almost all of them each side accuses the other of misrepresenting their position.
Finally, do you know which emperors bumped aside their biological sons in favor of an adopted son? I’d be curious to find out more about that. It’s something that didn’t ever seem to happen in Christian monarchies.
We don’t know what he argued. His edition of Luke didn’t have them, and so either he thought they were later additions or his version of Luke didn’t have them. Irenaeus isn’t our major source for Marcion; Tertullian and Epiphanius are. And historians, as you would imagine, look with extremely careful, critical eyes when seeing what they have to say about him.
How is Psalm 2:7 “today I have begotten you”, an adoptionist text?There may be a meaning to “begetting” that I don’t know.
When Emperors-or any Romans for that matter- adopted a son,it was clear that this was *not* a son begotten by them.Their biological children were the begotten ones.Conversely,an adopted son had been begotten by another father,and was that father’s biological son.The Roman adopting such a son-as anyone today- could not claim to have begotten him.
Thus,when God says at Jesus’ baptism “ today I have begotten you”, as in “ today I caused you to be born” (or even to have been engendered),is
“ begotten” used metaphorically?
Jesus is a grown man who may be considered to have been “ adopted” as a son by God, as God adopted David during David’s life, well after he was born, but how can Jesus be *both* begotten *and* adopted?
The second apparent conundrum is that an “ adopted” son doesn’t form part of a trinity were son and father are of the same substance. They are separate persons, yes, but not being simultaneously one with the Father and a person separate from the Father, the mystery of the Trinity cannot be said to exist.
“Begotten” refers to the father’s role in the birth of a child. The mother births the child and the father begets the child. So the point is that God has begotten Christ TODAY. He has become God’s son at that point.
It seems an adoptionist view is in Mark 12:1-12 and, strangely enough, the nature of this parable suggests it wasn’t spoken by the historical Jesus. The parable seems to say that the servants are the Israeli prophets, the son is the Davidic messiah and heir to God’s kingdom (Jesus), the owner of the vineyard is God, and the tenants are the Israeli leaders: the chief priests, teachers of the law, and Jerusalem authorities. Since the parable says the son (Jesus) is killed by the tenants (Israeli leaders, etc.) it suggests Jesus didn’t say this. The historical Jesus probably didn’t know he was going to be crucified. It also suggests that Mark 12:1-12 cannot be a historical account of Jesus interacting with his adversaries. This is because there is no way the chief priests and teachers of the law could have known that Jesus was going to be killed by Jerusalem authorities. So how could they have known that the parable was “spoken against them”? The parable only makes sense in a later theological context. This means that Mark, or Mark’s sources, are putting words into the mouth of Jesus. So how reliable should sources like Mark and Q be considered?
One of the major tasks of NT scholarship is to figure out WHERE these sources are historically reliable and where not. I agree that a story that presupposes the crucifixion seems unlikely to go back to a time before the crucifixion.
I think even the childhood story in Luke might have an ʻadoptionist’ style. He “grew in wisdom” meaning he was learning and increasing, and wasn’t born with that.
I noticed an interesting thing with Luke’s birth narrative tonight.
Luke 1:56, Mary stayed with Elizabeth for about three months and then returned home. That’s coincidentally the legal time one has to wait after a spiritually sanctioned temporary union, the iddah of Arab nikah mut‘ah, imo likely modeled on earlier pre-Islamic tradition. She does it apart from Joseph.
Just like how in Matthew, him waiting to consumate the union until after the male heir is born has a paralell in an um walad relationship, where the handmaiden can be freed to marry after the birth of an heir.
The temporary union contract does not disallow engaged women, and the woman must be a People Of The Book.
1. If we posit different versions of Luke, wouldn’t the difference in Christology – adoptionist to incarnational – indicate that we are dealing with different authors?
2. Are there any indications in Acts of possible different versions of that text as well?
I don’t think there is an incarnational Christology in Luke. The virgin birth narrative (see 1:35) assumes that Jesus comes into existence at the time of conception, not that he preexisted. But yes, the VB narrative would stand at odds with the idea he was adopted at his birth. One of my points is that LUke has LOTS of oddities like that. Elsewhere in Acts he indicats that Jesus became the son of God at the resurrection! (See Acts 2:36; 13:32-33)
2. Yes, and in Acts there is no doubt, since some manuscripts have af foerm of the text that is 8.5% longer than other manuscripts (more wordy!)
The argument of the later addition of the birth and infancy narratives to Luke’s gospel is persuasive. A companion analysis of the birth and infancy narratives in Matthew’s Gospel would give a more complete picture of the issue.
I’m not sure Marcion is good evidence for either the inclusion or exclusion of Lk 1-2. Irenaeus doesn’t specify how much of the opening four chapters of Luke that Marcion’s Gospel was lacking. Tertullian and Epiphanius clarify that evidently Marcion’s Gospel began with what we call Lk 3:1 then Lk 4:31-35 then parts of Lk 4:16-30, etc. In other words, Marcion’s Gospel didn’t merely lack Lk 1-2 but most of the first 3.5 chapters of Luke. Marcion didn’t include the birth, baptism, temptations, or genealogy of Jesus. Marcion doesn’t seem like clear evidence for the absence of Lk 1-2 alone.
On your remark “either by the same author or by someone else”, I have been wondering: when you read it in the original Greek, do you see any reason to suspect a 2nd author in terms of writing style?
If I were to add my own chapter to one of your books, even trying to imitate your idiosyncrasies here and there, people paying attention may be able to tell us apart because we just don’t sound the same nor build our sentences the same way. I see scholars resorting to statistics to prove that, say between the author of the Gospel of John and the one of Revelation, or between Pauline letters. It seems to me that telling two authors apart in a given literary production should be more obvious overall, even if hard to prove definitively.
I actually had that same thought earlier when you mentioned other passages potentially not belonging to the core of the text in Mark and John.
Yup, right! And that change of style is definitely a key to different authorship for works for antiquity as well (e.g., it’s one reason it doesn’t look like Paul wrote Ephesians). The problem in this case is that (a) It is indeed a different style BUT (b) the different style replicates the style more widely found in the Septuagint SO it’s possible that Luke wanted to start his Gospel with a “biblical” style of a “miraculous birth” as in some of the stories of Scripture. Or that someone else did. My inclination (well this afternoon) is to think it was someone else. But it’s not a slam-dunk case.
Bart, here’s a question for you…
If the gospel of Luke originally did not originally include the first two chapters of birth narrative, might it also have not included the formal introduction to “most excellent Theophilus”? Could that introduction have been added at the same time as the birth narrative?
And who was Theophilus anyway? Is it possible that he was Theophilus of Antioch, who became a patriarch in the year 169? After all, he was said to have been born a Pagan, and became a Christian after his study of prophetic scriptures. Might the gospel of Luke (a special version personally addressed to him) have been part of his early study? And a version of Acts similarly addressed?
I read that Theophilus was zealous in attacking heretics, and especially Marcion. So likely he would have been aware of the Luke gospel, probably one more “complete” than the version used by Marcion.
As for being “most excellent”, perhaps that is a reference to his upper class status or nobility, a status which, after his conversion, might make him a natural to later become a patriarch of the church.
What do you think? And are there any scholars who have entertained this notion?
It’s possible — bu tsince the second volume of the author’s work, the book of Acts, indicates that a previous volume on the life of Jesus had also been dedicated to Theophilus, it seems likely that the first volume had the first four verses. This could not be Theophilus of Antioch, though, since Luke was in circulation almost certainly by the early second century, since it gets quoted then.
But couldn’t the quotes from the early 2nd century have been from an earlier edition that did not include the dedication to Theophilus? Perhaps both Luke and Acts had earlier editions that did not include the dedication. It sounds as if Theophilus, being “most excellent”, was considered a high prize for conversion efforts, so perhaps scribes were commissioned to produce special editions of both books just for him, which by then had the birth narrative added as well. After he later became a patriarch, those editions might have been treasured, well protected for decades and copied until they became the “official” versions.
I suppose most anything is possible. It would be technically possible, of course, to suggest that Luke originally didn’t have chapters 14-17. Or anything else. The question is always: what makes it likely? I can’t think of a compelling reason to think the opening verses of each account were added later., whereas I think there is good evidence to suggest the rest of Luke 1 and all of chapter 2 were.
I’m probably biased by the desire to solve the mystery of the dedication, but the solution seems to fit pretty well. Theophilus is apparently an important conversion target for the author, who wants him to “know the truth”. He is not yet a firm believer, which would fit T of Antioch starting out as a wealthy Pagan in his youth.
Another point occurs, that Acts became largely concerned with events taking place in Antioch. Such history might be important to a resident of that town, one who later became a patriarch there.
I find it easier to imagine the dedication and birth narratives added together as a single unit preamble, rather than the birth narratives as a large interpolation carefully inserted.
Of course, what could invalidate the hypothesis is finding an early reference to the dedication from long before the time of T of A. Anyway I appreciate the feedback, thanks Bart 🙂
What do you make of the idea that Luke’s birth narrative fits with his supposed “preference for the poor?” Is it just a coincidence that this birth narrative adheres to this theme, in distinction to Matthew, where it’s rich magi that attend him in a house, rather than poor shepherds in an animal stall? This has been a cherished mnemonic and teaching device for me. Just when I thought I had the puzzle all lined up neatly, you toss in another monkey wrench!
Yes, I think there are a number of Lukan motifs in the first two chapters — and that makes good sense if someone other than Luke added them to his account, since someone would presumably be interested in editing and expanding Luke if it was a book he cherished and agreed with.
I seem to recall you saying — somewhere in one of your lectures or books — that whenever patristic authors commented on Luke’s version of Jesus’ baptism, the “voice from heaven” always quoted Psalms (“You are my beloved son; today I have begotten you.”) and *not* the Psalms/Isaiah hybrid (“You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.”) that has come down to us.
Given the dearth of available sources, that seems to me to be powerful supporting evidence for the erstwhile existence of a 1st edition of Luke — that was either lost or (more likely) went up in Holy Roman smoke.
Was Marcion the only one to whom you were referring? Or do I misremember? Or has contrary evidence since emerged? If none of the above, how is it that you didn’t mention that compelling support here?
Also, wouldn’t the addition of the two prologue chapters — creating a Luke, 2nd edition, *specifically* to forefend an adoptionist Christology — also strongly impel the author (whether Luke, himself, or an apologetic redactor) to simultaneously revise the heavenly pronouncement at the baptism, as well?
No Marcion is not the one. The evidence is actually a bit comlicated but there are church fathers going back to Justin and Methodius who uote it htis way, one of our oldest Greek mss, and some Latin mss. Yes, it’s possible the first two chapters were added to ocunter the misimpression this form of the voice could give
I realize that there is no way to be definitive about this, but do you still think (as you opined in one of your old Teaching Company lectures) that it was probably Luke, himself, who added the nativity prologue to create a second edition of his own work, or do you now suspect that these two chapters were quilled by a subsequent, scribal redactor?
Also, whomever it was, do you believe it more likely than not that the theological correction of the pronouncement by the “voice from heaven” was made by the same author at the same time?
I don’t really know. (ANd forgot that I said it was probably Luke) And no, I think the correction of the voice was by a laer scribe.
Love this, and the previous blogs leading into this. You are actually strenghthening my view that what we call Gospel of Luke was not written until either during or just after the Bar Kokhba revolt. That what you refer to as Proto Luke was actually Marcions Evangelikon. That the author of our current Luke addressed this updated gospel with the emerging Christology adding in the birth narrative as well as other theological mutations. I just discovered that my view is not unique, but is actually called the “Schwegler hypothesis”, which gives me joy to know I’m not alone in this view. Also strenghens my view that the “Theophilus” was the new appointed bishop of Antioch (traditional home of Luke), who happened to produce a work called “against Marcion”. Your “messier scenairo” fits greatly to this, as well as explains Pappias’s discriptions of Mark and Mathew leading one to believe that they were really “Proto Mark” and “Proto Mathew” to the gospels we have today.
So Bart.. How does such fit into the “dating” given to the Gospels as we know them? I can go with the “protos” being first century possibly but not the cannonized versions.
Not seeing your logic for dating it later apart from the name Theophilus, which, by the way, was a very common name. I one time did a computer search for every occurrence in ancient Greek literature (I had some theory about it — this was decades ago) and when page after page of entries churned out, I gave up on thinking it was something special. I don’t see anything to think Papias was referring to a proto-mark or proto-matthew. The big problem is that Luke appears to be quoted by church fathers in the early second century (the Didache, e.g., which probably dates to around 100 CE), which surely gives us some indication of its date. And how could it date after Justin?
This notion, that the “most excellent Theophilus” was some obscure Govt Official is somewhat senseless raising many questions. What point would the theology of the gospel have if created for just some govt official where the “govt” was putting Christians to death. An apology maybe, but not a theological gospel. Much more likely that this “most excellent Theophilus” was a high ranking church official who like Papias and others, were searching for first hand accounts of the Lord “and Apostles”. So that would limit the number of “Theophilus’s” in and of itself. The “name” of the Gospel being attributed to “Luke” would require some connection outside of the content within, to give credibility of such authorship. Antioch being home of Luke gives such credibility, making the church of Antioch the most likely source of a gospel being credited to Luke as the author. Also, how many “most excellent” bishops/ patriarchs were named “Theophilus”? That pretty much narrows it down to “one”
If the Gospel was dated mid 2nd century then the Theophilus of Luke is most definately the Bishop of Antioch. My contention is that our “version/edition” of Luke was copleated in mid 2nd century.
The argument is usually that the books were written to a Roman official to explain the true nature of Christianity so as to show it was not a threat to the state, and so should not be persecuted. I don’t agree with the view, but I don’t think its nonsensical. Again, I don’t see how a book can be quoted before it’s written.
My contention is that the “quotes” attributed to “Luke” by early fathers are actually quotes from the “sources” that “Luke” copied from. It appears there were many more accounts at the time of the writing of “Luke” than 3 other gospels. Luke was written at a time late enough that many gospels/accounts were written proceeding his work.
For me, the main support of a view that gospel of Luke is a response to Marcions Gospel, is the followup writing of “Acts of the Apostles”. To me.. That is a rebuke of Marcions view that Paul was the only “real” Apostle. The work validates the status of the 12, and has Paul being commissioned by James and given official designation as an Apostle. Acts maintains an “equality” between Paul and the other Apostles, which is in direct opposition to Maricions view and canon. Galations 1 would have been availible to “Luke” but Luke wanted to drive home a “point”.
I believe that gospel of Luke was a “judaized” version of Marcions Gospel (and other sources) to establish a direct link of Jesus to the Old Testament to dispute Marcion. “Luke/Acts” as opposed to “Evangelion/Apostolikon”. Definately Marcion and Luke are entangled.
As for setting the date.
Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg? Do the “quotes” and Didache, e.g. stem from “Luke” or does “Luke” take from the source of the quotes and Didache? The gospel states that it’s contents are from other sources, so why not from from the same sources that such other quotes and writings stem from? Luke 1:1-4 is explicit that at the time of composition there were many more accounts that had been written. What is certain, is that areas of content of Luke did stem from earlier accounts availible to the early church fathers and Didache. It seems to me to be quite a stretch to attribute a gospel with such a developed theology to a time prior to the early church fathers. The theology of Luke (and Acts) appears to be a counter arguement to Marcionism. Again a “chicken or egg” argument. Did Marcion butcher Luke to support his made up theology or did Luke modify Marcions gospel to form his theology? So…. If one considers that the “Theophilus” was indeed the Bishop of Antioch, the timing would lead to being a counter argument to Marcionism.
Cannot just disregard Luke 1:1-4/ Acts 1:1
As for Papias’s Mark and Mathew.
What is very obvious is that the Mark and Mathew of Papias are “not” the Mark and Mathew in todays New Testiment. So… either they would be considered Proto Gospels of “our” versions keeping their identities, or there were multiple different Marks” and “Mathews” circulated. This is the messiest of all scenarios. Papias is the only early church father who gave some sort of a description of the Gospels he had until Origen. We don’t know what gospel “identities” the earliest church fathers were quoting from. Just that some of those quotes fit into one of our current gospels. I believe they had earlier “proto versions” that have been edited numerous times into the mid/late 2nd century. I could accept that Mathew and Mark (possibly John) may have authored their own accounts in some sort of form, but our gospels would be heavily edited theological versions of such continued in their names.
When do the gospel names “John” and Luke” first surface? Papias identifies a Mark and Mathew. I don’t think “Luke” was identified as “Luke” until after the “Gospel” that was addressed to Theophilus (of Antioch).
Luke and John are first called Luke and John by Irenaeus in 180 or so. Luke was apparently the basis for Marcion’s Gospel in the late 130s, or at least a Gospel very much like our Luke, but he doesn’t call it Luke, just “the Gospel.” His quotations of it, though, are preserved in Tertullian etc.
Tatians “Diatessaron” was written in same time frame of Irenaeus, including both John and Luke so was wondering if anything earlier?
So.. We have Marcions “Evangelion/Apostolikon” and we have Lukes “Gospel/Acts”
One of them must be a repudiation of the other. To me, it seems more likely Luke is repudiating Marcion than Marcion repudiating Luke. My reasoning, is that Marcion by that time would have much more than just Luke to repudiate. Marcion would have had multiple authors works to dispute and rewrite in his gospel. Where Luke had just one author to dispute/rewrite. I doubt that Marcion created a belief to just dispute Luke/Acts. But definately someone disputed Marcion and his writings and beliefs. So I think it was “Luke/Acts” doing the disputing.
What do you have/know that I am missing that still leads you to believe in an earlier writing of Luke/Acts? Nothing you have mentioned so far really defeats my rationalization. I’m thinking its your fundamentalist background which really bore into everyone the gospels were written by who they are named for. Your knowlege just tells you its impossible. Thus “earlier” is more comfortable/secure. I too was fundamentalist, but dropped all beliefs and started over.
“Thanks, Bart. Regarding the textual content of the first two chapters of Luke, specifically in P4 or the earliest available source, are you fully convinced that they are different from the rest of Luke’s Gospel? If yes, where can I read your analysis?”
I’m not sure I have ever written a full analysis, but the main themes in chs 1-2 (in any and all witnesses) are not found in either Luke or Acts otherwise: birth of JB, census, Behlehem, Virgin birth, dedicatoin in temple, twelve-year old Jesus, etc. etc. Some of these are important for understanding Jesus, but even though we do have other backward references to his life in the speeches in Acts (baptism, e.g.), nothing to these.