Pages

Thursday, December 15, 2022

The Written Sources Behind The Opening Of Luke's Gospel

Two of the biggest misconceptions people have about Christmas issues are that there wasn't much interest in Jesus' childhood in the earliest decades of church history and that whatever information circulated on the subject prior to the gospels of Matthew and Luke was only disseminated orally. An effective way of addressing both of those misconceptions simultaneously is to focus on the sources Luke cites in the first few verses of his gospel.

Since Luke compares his gospel to those earlier sources, it's likely that those sources were at least mostly written ones. And see here for a discussion of the evidence that the earliest Christians probably wrote much more than modern critics often suggest.

What immediately follows Luke's comments on those earlier sources? A lengthy discussion of Jesus' childhood. While it's possible that none of those earlier sources discussed such issues, continuity is more likely than discontinuity. It's unlikely that the "many" sources Luke refers to showed little or no interest in Jesus' childhood, then Luke departed from them to such a large extent by writing so much about the subject. It's not just that the interests of the early Christians are unlikely to have changed so much so rapidly. It's also that the close proximity between Luke 1:1-4 and what follows from verse 5 onward makes driving a wedge between the two less reasonable.

Consider some of the written sources relevant to Jesus' childhood that are known to have existed or have significant potential to have existed prior to the gospels. As I've noted before, there are parallels between Luke's census material in Luke 2 and what we know of ancient census records. And, as I've also discussed before, a long series of sources from the second century onward reported that a census record mentioning Jesus was extant in their day. Concerning how accessible census records were, see here. I've also noted, such as here, that the Slaughter of the Innocents seems to be partially corroborated by a description of Herod found in the Assumption Of Moses (an early Jewish source whose material on Herod probably was written during Jesus' lifetime). And my post on Jesus' relatives earlier this Christmas season discussed some parallels between Luke's genealogy of Jesus and material found in Jude. It seems likely that Luke derived his genealogy at least in part from the brothers of Jesus, especially James, for reasons explained in the post just linked. That sort of genealogical information makes more sense coming from a written source than it does coming from an oral one. That's true not just because of the length and complexity of genealogies, but also for other reasons. Recall, for example, my citation of Ezra 2:59-62 and Nehemiah 7:61-64 in my post about the relatives of Jesus linked above. Those passages refer to people searching genealogical records, which makes more sense if there were written sources involved. Nehemiah 7:5 refers to "the book of the genealogy". Given how widely ancient Jewish sources kept genealogical records and the widespread interest in Jesus' ancestry reflected in references to aspects of his genealogy in the earliest Christian writings we have (e.g., Romans 1:3, Matthew 1:1-17, Luke 3:23-38), it seems more likely than not that there would have been a genealogy of Jesus in writing before the time of the gospels. When Saul of Tarsus carried letters authorizing his persecution of Christians just after the time of Jesus' death (Acts 9:1-2), there's a good chance that the documents referred to Jesus' background to some extent. A Jewish source Justin Martyr cites in the second century, a source that seems to date back to the first century, refers to Jesus' Galilean background, and we know that Jesus and his followers were widely referred to by their enemies as Nazarenes and Galileans. (See here for documentation and further discussion of the relevant sources.) Even if Saul's letters referred to in Acts 9 didn't contain such information, those letters illustrate how easily written sources addressing Jesus' childhood could have existed. That should caution us against the common skeptical assumption that the early Christian and non-Christian sources were relying entirely or almost entirely on oral information when addressing Jesus' childhood.

The large amount of writing Paul was involved in, including documents no longer extant, the writings of others he refers to, and the reference to "many" accounts of Jesus' life in Luke 1:1 should prevent us from concluding that writing as much as we have in the New Testament documents was a significant departure from what was occurring in the decades just before then. The people who lived in those earlier decades probably wrote a substantial amount as well. And the examples I've provided above illustrate how likely it is that Jesus' childhood was part of what was addressed in those earlier writings.

4 comments:

  1. Isn't it better and natural to believe Luke's "eyewitnesses" were still alive when Luke was sidelined in Roman Palestina? Mary's and Elizabeth's songs, along with the details of Jesus conception could have only come from Mary who would have been about 70 years old at Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea which sideline Luke. This is a very credible source who kept track of everything by "treasuring and pondering them in her heart" (Lk.2.19).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mary surely was a source involved in the process, but I doubt that Luke consulted her. She could have lived into her 70s or older, but that doesn't make it probable, and she isn't mentioned after Acts 1:14. She went to live with John, and I'm not aware of any reason to think Luke used John as a source either. Given the circumstances at the time (Mary's living with John), it seems unlikely that Luke would have consulted the one without consulting the other. The best explanation (in this context) for the small amount of attention given to both of them in Acts is that Luke didn't consult either.

      By contrast, there's a lot of reason to think Luke consulted James the brother of Jesus, as I discussed in an article last month. James was influenced by Mary, along with whatever other sources.

      Delete
  2. Of course Mary influenced her son James. If James knew this material so well and had the exact account with all the intricacies of Lk. 1-3, then why did he keep it secret for so long? Why give it to Luke? James' epistle was early it seems and he could have published these miraculous accounts even earlier than his epistle since they were before his time.
    Mary's genealogy was something she would treasure just as her brothers cherished them (if she had any brothers). If she didn't have brothers (no evidence that she did), then she would have been the heir of her father's house and part of the 77 generations of descent. She would have been "the woman" of Gen.3.15 is what I am arguing, and she knew it but was humble as a servant of the Lord. The key, for me, is the promise given to David found several places in the O.T. The Son of David came from his lineage and is clear in Luke that David's son Nathan bore the Messianic line. Luke's genealogy is Mary's inherited like Zelophehad's daughters' their father's legacy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't suggested that James knew "all the intricacies of Lk. 1-3" or that he "kept it secret". Regarding why he'd give to Luke whatever information James gave him, he probably would have done it because Luke asked for it. We know Luke was researching such issues and that he met James. We also have other information supportive of the involvement of the brothers of Jesus (including James), as explained in my article linked above. By contrast, we don't know that Luke met Mary. Your appeal to the letter of James doesn't have much weight, since the document is a letter, and a brief one, not a biography. And it would be unreasonable to suggest that James didn't have any significant information about Jesus' childhood and other subjects not addressed in the letter of James. He obviously knew far more about Jesus than what's found in that letter.

      Delete