Early Extrabiblical Sources On Jesus' Childhood

It's sometimes argued that the infancy narratives were added to Matthew and/or Luke sometime after the documents were originally published, perhaps even as late as around the time of Marcion. Or an infancy narrative will be considered part of the original document, but the document will be dated late, such as in the 90s or even sometime in the second century.

There are many ways to approach that kind of position. I've argued that there's much more information on Jesus' childhood than people usually think in the New Testament material outside the infancy narratives. See here for a series of posts addressing that other New Testament material. The last post in the series addresses extrabiblical sources, but it's just one post that summarizes a lot of information, and I've written more on the subject since then.

On the many problems with viewing Luke's Christmas material as a later addition to his gospel, see my discussion of the topic in my response to Bart Ehrman here.

I've also written about the early extrabiblical sources on particular issues within the infancy narratives:

Christian Sources On The Virgin Birth
Non-Christian Sources On The Virgin Birth

Christian Sources On Jesus' Davidic Ancestry
Non-Christian Sources On Jesus' Davidic Ancestry

Christian Sources On The Star Of Bethlehem
Non-Christian Sources On The Star Of Bethlehem

Christian Sources On The Bethlehem Birthplace
Non-Christian Sources On The Bethlehem Birthplace

Christian Sources On Luke's Census
Non-Christian Sources On Luke's Census

Christian Sources On Jesus' Residence In Galilee And Nazareth
Non-Christian Sources On Jesus' Residence In Galilee And Nazareth

Christian Sources On The Slaughter Of The Innocents
Non-Christian Sources On The Slaughter Of The Innocents

I've written some posts over the years about Christmas material in certain church fathers and churches, such as this one about Ignatius and the church of Ephesus. On Polycarp and the Smyrnaean church's acceptance of the virgin birth, go here. That same post also addresses other early sources, like Second Clement, The Epistle Of Barnabas, and an early Jewish tradition that interacts with Matthew's gospel. One of the lines of evidence that's relevant here is how the early sources viewed the New Testament documents that contain Christmas material. I've written a post about the use of the gospels by Quadratus and his colleagues in the early second century. And here and here are a couple about Papias' view of the gospel of Matthew (in multiple passages, not just the one typically cited). For a discussion of some material in Aristides on the virgin birth and Luke's gospel, see here.

Something that should be noticed in these discussions is how often the earliest sources refer to the views in question as if they've been circulating and developing for a long time. My post here on the virgin birth, for example, refers to how both Justin Martyr and his Jewish opponents had developed multiple lines of argument for and against Jesus' virginal conception. Near the beginning of Justin's discussion with Trypho, the latter comments, "I am aware that your precepts in the so-called Gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can keep them; for I have carefully read them" (Dialogue With Trypho 10). That had already taken place by the time Justin had his exchange with Trypho, which Justin dated to the 130s. Similarly, the earlier Jewish source(s) Celsus drew some of his material from show a lot of awareness of Christian claims about Jesus' childhood and an earlier process of developing responses to them. The sort of harmonization of the gospels that we see in sources like Justin and Tatian, including harmonization of the infancy narratives and other material relevant to Jesus' childhood, would have taken a substantial amount of time. What we see in second-century sources like these isn't just the simplest kind of references to some Christmas issues, but rather a more developed form of thinking and argumentation about those topics.

It's likewise significant that these sources, both Christian and non-Christian, interpret the documents in question as if the documents belong to a historical genre. And when the relevant beliefs are addressed independently of a document (e.g., Jesus' Davidic ancestry, his Bethlehem birthplace), they're addressed as if they're historical claims.

One of the questions we should be asking is where the positions of modern critics of Christianity are to be found in these early sources. Where do we see those sources denying Jesus' existence, saying that he was born in Nazareth rather than Bethlehem, interpreting the infancy narratives as if they were written in a non-historical genre, etc.?