I'm adding this to my wishlist. Thanks for the link.
I haven't looked into this question at any depth, but I think Ehrman's dot points make a pretty good, if not definitive, case for these early verses being an addition to the gospel. Placing the genealogy in chapter 3 at his baptism instead of in chapter 1 at his conception/birth is very odd, but makes total sense if one supposes the original started at Luke 3. That said, just because it might make more sense doesn't mean it must be an addition... Like all these hypothetical additions/interpolations, it's very hard to conclude without any direct manuscript evidence. Sometimes I wonder if those who advance addition/interpolation hypotheses are making the mistake of assuming the original authors must have been more coherent than they appear.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
I'm adding this to my wishlist. Thanks for the link.
For what it's worth you can read my fairly comprehensive notes on this book, chapter by chapter, in the archive at http://vridar.org/category/book-reviews ... luke-acts/ -- will need to scroll to bottom and start on the "next page".
vridar.orgMusings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
toejam wrote: Ehrman's dot points make a pretty good, if not definitive, case for these early verses being an addition to the gospel. Placing the genealogy in chapter 3 at his baptism instead of in chapter 1 at his conception/birth is very odd, but makes total sense if one supposes the original started at Luke 3.
The Infancy Narratives are routinely considered extrinsic to the basic gospels. Luke 1 & 2 are not just considered missing in Marcion, but in Proto-Luke even as considered by conservative 20th Century scholars like Burnett H. Streeter (The Four Gospels, 1924).
spin wrote:Long ago, when I was reading on Luke, I noted that a number of scholars were of the view that the birth narrative was additive after the gospel was written. Sadly I can find a good references to that view. I have seen the idea touted by Raymond Brown in Birth of the Messiah, but he doesn't footnote it. I also know that Ehrman supports the view as he has blogged on it, but still I can't find any literature that I feel I could cite that discusses the notion that Luke originally started at 3:1.
Do you know any scholarly references to the idea that the birth narrative in Luke was a later attachment to the front of the gospel? Ta.
Based on the data we have (e.g., Tertullian), it strikes me as unlikely that "original Luke" contained a birth narrative.
Thanks to all those who posted suggestions to this thread. Got dragged off from having the ability to respond. Too much time needed elsewhere. Now in distant foreign lands. Hope to be back in a month. Have looked at various ideas posted and though I need to provide relatively conservative scholarship, I'm beginning to like the Marcion source as an earlier fork from the Lucan tradition, given the lack of Lucan dislocations in the text: ie it's before the Lucan wroter moved the hometown scene earlier than Capernaum events and the reference to Simon's house before Simon had been called. So Marcion starting with the date in Lk 3:1 helps to strengthen the lack of the birth narrative.
Toodle & thanks to the kind suggesters.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
spin wrote:Thanks to all those who posted suggestions to this thread. Got dragged off from having the ability to respond. Too much time needed elsewhere. Now in distant foreign lands. Hope to be back in a month. Have looked at various ideas posted and though I need to provide relatively conservative scholarship, I'm beginning to like the Marcion source as an earlier fork from the Lucan tradition, given the lack of Lucan dislocations in the text: ie it's before the Lucan wroter moved the hometown scene earlier than Capernaum events and the reference to Simon's house before Simon had been called. So Marcion starting with the date in Lk 3:1 helps to strengthen the lack of the birth narrative.
Toodle & thanks to the kind suggesters.
JW:
Lukewise, there is some evidence that the beginning of the Gospel, Mark 1:3 is not original:
1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
2 Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way.
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight;
J.K. Elliott rightly divides the evidence for not original:
What I find interesting here (it goes without saying that it has not got the attention it deserves) is yet again we have a questionable beginning to a Gospel which orthodox Christianity would have had motivation to add/forge in conflict with Marcion as Mark 1:1-3 makes near explicit that GMark's Jesus was supposedly predicted and referred to in The Jewish Bible. Less questionable is that it is probably not a coincidence that we don't have much manuscript evidence before the 4th century (when orthodox Christianity gained control).
It would be ironic if the superior witness to original GMark was buried in Gaza:
Abdul: (Hiding in tunnel in between bombings) Hey, look what I just found buried here. It's an ancient Arabic proof of the existence of zero.
