spin

Here's a quote from Raymond E. Brown's Birth of the Messiah (Doubleday, 1993) which covers the basics of the scholarly view regarding the Lucan birth narrative's secondary nature:

[T2]Did [Luke] begin writing with the birth stories, or did he begin with the account of the ministry and, as an afterthought, prefix the birth stories? In the case of Matthew the evidence clearly favored the thesis that the evangelist began with 1:1 and composed the Gospel in the order in which it has come to us. In the case of Luke the evidence points in the opposite direction. Although there have been occasional attempts to join the infancy story to the next two chapters, so that a continuous narrative-unit of the Gospel would extend from 1:5 to 4:15, the solemn beginning of the ministry in 3: 1-2 has proved an almost insurmountable obstacle to such a joining. Indeed, historiographical parallels in other Greek writing suggest that Luke 3:1-2 could well have served as the original opening of the Lucan Gospel. Support for this is found not only in the fact that Mark and John open the Gospel story with the events surrounding the baptism of Jesus, but also in the reference to this baptism by JBap as a beginning in Acts 1:22. (The latter passage suggests that the infancy narrative may have been prefixed to the Gospel after the Book of Acts was completed.) The placing of the genealogy in the third chapter of Luke makes more sense if that had been done before an infancy narrative had been prefixed. (239-240)[/T2]
I'm sure some of you would be interested in what Brown has to say on the issue.

What I'm interested in is if there have been any recent scholarly papers published on the Lucan birth narrative and its placement. So far I can only find Brown, which is obviously a popular presentation of the matter. Any pointers to recent scholarship will be appreciated.

stephan huller

I don't know if it is recent but Joseph B. Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle. University of South Carolina Press, 2006 argues much the same thing via Marcion. It is here:

http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=MU2U08v6aq0C

stephan huller

FWIW I noticed something about Irenaeus's Against Heresies Book Four. It can be argued that Luke was added later in that section where he cites the beginning of each gospel.

PhilosopherJay

Hi stephan Huller,

I have long thought that the writer of "Against Heresies" wrote Luke.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

stephan huller

Yes the emphasis on Luke as the final word on Paul is odd. The heretics surely got Paul right. The acceptance of the spurious 'Pastoral' epistles and the use of these texts against the heresies is also problematic.

stephan huller

spin,

Don't forget that the Lukan birth narratives also made their way into Mandaean written tradition. That's very odd. How did one appropriate the other? Never really looked into it but there is a relationship.

stephan huller

Another interesting relationship is the Quran, the Protoevangelium of James and Mandaean lore's interest in Mary living in the Temple. But that's another thread for another time.

spin

My interest is in the fact that the birth narrative(s), clearly additive, is the only place in Luke that mentions either Mary or Nazareth (in Lk 4:16 we find Nazara). Lk apparently lost the Mary reference from Mk when the hometown rejection was rewritten. That scene, geographically specified as Nazara, was then moved to eliminate any problems regarding Capernaum (while creating the anachronism of referring to events in Capernaum before they happened). And yet later still the birth Narrative gives us Nazareth. So we have signs of three chronologically different events:

1. rewrite of hometown rejection from unnamed to Nazara;
2. relocation prior to Capernaum; and
3. birth narrative added with Nazareth.

Vorkosigan

Thanks, Spin. That's another bit of evidence for what I have long suspected, that Mark between chaps 6 and 11 has been extensively redacted by a later editor. Luke must have had a redacted version that was even shorter than we suspect.

Vorkosigan

aa5874

It is most unlikely that the author of Against Heresies wrote gLuke when it is claimed Jesus was crucified at about the age of 50 years old in "Against Heresies' 2.22.

In gLuke, Jesus was crucified under Pilate when Herod was tetrarch of Galilee after being about 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius.

gLuke's Jesus was crucified at about 30 years of age.

"Against Heresies" Jesus was crucified at about the age of 50 YEARS.

"Against Heresies" is a compilation of multiple authors or essentially a forgery or false attribution.