The Unreliability of the Gospel of Luke - Part 2: Birth, Infancy, & Childhood Stories

WHERE WE ARE

The author of the Gospel of Luke made some changes to the stories about Jesus that came from the Gospel of Mark, and added some stories or events to what is found in the Gospel of Mark. 

The changes and additions by the author of the Gospel of Luke to stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark could either be historically reliable or not. If those changes and additions are historically unreliable, then in terms of stories about Jesus, the Gospel of Luke would have very little historical information to offer about Jesus beyond what we already find in the Gospel of Mark.

In Part 1 of this series, I argued that it is probable that the changes and additions by the author of the Gospel of Luke to stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable on this basis:

REASON #1: There are several general considerations about the Gospel of Luke that suggest that its additions and changes to stories from the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable.  

A SECOND REASON FOR THE HISTORICAL UNRELIABILITY OF THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

In this post, I am going to provide more specific evidence that the changes and additions to stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark made by the author of the Gospel of Luke are dubious and historically unreliable. 

Here is the second reason that supports this conclusion:

REASON #2: The Gospel of Mark has no stories about the birth, infancy, or childhood of Jesus, but the Gospel of Luke adds stories of eight such events, and there are good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of those stories in the Gospel of Luke. 

In the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke we find eight different events about the birth, infancy, and childhood of Jesus that are not found in the Gospel of Mark:[1]

• Miraculous Conception of John (Luke 1:7-25)
• Miraculous Conception of Jesus (Luke 1:26-38)
• Mary Visits Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-56)
• Birth and Naming of John (Luke 1:57-80]
• Birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1-7)
• Visit of the Shepherds (Luke 2:8-20)
• Dedication of Jesus (Luke 2:21-40)
• The Young Jesus in Jerusalem (Luke 2:41-52)

Also related to the birth of Jesus, the Gospel of Luke provides an alleged genealogy of Jesus:

• Jesus' Genealogy (Luke 3:23-38)

If this genealogy is historically dubious, then that would cast doubt on the historical reliability of the eight alleged events in the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke.

SCHOLARS USUALLY VIEW THE BIRTH STORIES AS LEGENDS 

Most mainline Jesus and NT scholars view the birth stories in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew as unhistorical legends:

Historians are usually convinced that if a case can be made for Jesus' birthplace, the most likely site is Nazareth in Galilee.[2]  - Jesus scholar James Charlesworth

 

Most critics doubt that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea.[3]  - Jesus scholar Craig A. Evans

During the reign of Herod the Great, and probably toward its end (ca. 7-4 B.C.),  Jesus was born in the hill town of Nazareth in Lower Galilee.[4] - Jesus scholar John P. Meier   

He [Jesus] was probably born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem.[5] - Jesus scholar Marcus Borg

The precise date of the birth of Jesus is still unknown. It occured, it would seem, before the spring of 4 BC, and most likely in 5, or a little earlier.

...His birthplace is equally uncertain. Whilst Bethlehem cannot be absolutely excluded, it remains highly questionable.[6] - Jesus scholar Geza Vermes

Most disturbing for Christian pilgrim piety is the outcome that Jesus' birth in Bethlehem has to be left in question. Was the story to that effect contrived simply because of the Micah prophecy: 'And you Bethlehem, ... from you shall come forth a ruler, who will shepherd my people Israel' (Mic. 5.2, cited by Matt. 2.5-6)?[7] - Jesus scholar James Dunn  

According to the birth stories in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was born in Bethlehem (in southern Palestine).  If Jesus was not actually born in Bethlehem, but was born in Nazareth (in northern Palestine), as "Historians are usually convinced," then the birth stories in those two Gospels are unhistorical legends. 

There are three primary reasons why I (and most mainline scholars) do not see these stories [the stories of Jesus' birth in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew] as historically factual.[8] - Jesus scholar Marcus Borg

We will look at the three primary reasons later in this post.  For now, the key point is that Borg's skeptical view of these birth stories is shared by "most mainline scholars".

The prominent New Testament and Jesus scholar E.P. Sanders argues that the birth stories in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew are unhistorical:

The authors of the gospels offer this kind of information about Jesus, information that is based on the assumption that he fulfilled biblical statements. This does not prove that they were dishonest historians. They were not historians at all, except accidentally (though Luke had some of the attributes of a hellenistic historian). Nor were they dishonest.  They believed that Jesus really did fulfil the promises of Hebrew scripture. 

[...]

This way of seeing history was of great assistance to the authors of the gospels. It allowed them to fill in some of the blank spaces in the story of Jesus. They were probably set on this course by genuine parallels between John the Baptist and Jesus, on the one hand, and biblical characters or predictions on the other. ...

The more parallels between Jesus and characters or prophecies in Hebrew scripture, the more likely Matthew, Mark, and Luke were to invent still more. ...The clearest cases of invention are in the birth narratives. Matthew and Luke write that Jesus was born in Bethlehem but grew up in Nazareth. This probably reflects two sorts of 'facts': in ordinary history, Jesus was from Nazareth; according to salvation history, the redeemer of Israel should have been born in Bethlehem, David's city. The two Gospels have completely different and irreconcilable ways of moving Jesus and his family from one place to the other.[9]

The birth narratives constitute an extreme case. Matthew and Luke used them to place Jesus in salvation history. It seems that they had very little historical information about Jesus' birth (historical in our sense), and so they went to one of their other sources, Jewish scripture.[10]

In addition to general considerations (presented in my previous post) that provide a good reason to doubt the historical reliability of the additions and changes made by the author of Gospel of Luke to the alleged events described in the Gospel of Mark, we now have a more specific reason to doubt the historical reliability of those aspects of the Gospel of Luke: most mainstream scholars view the birth stories in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew as unhistorical legends. That is a good reason to believe that it is probable that those birth stories are unhistorical legends.

THE TRADITION OF A REMARKABLE BIRTH IS LATE 

Jesus scholar Marcus Borg mentions three reasons why many scholars doubt the historical reliability of these stories. Here is one reason that he gives:

First, the tradition that Jesus had a remarkable birth is relatively late. The stories of his birth are found only in the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke, both written near the end of the first century.  Earlier writers (as well as the rest of the New Testament) do not refer to a special birth.[11]

The Jesus scholar John Meier reinforces this point with an explanation:

 ...unlike the public ministry of Jesus, where certain eyewitnesses were also prominent leaders in the early Church, almost all the witnesses to the events surrounding Jesus' birth were dead or otherwise unavailable to the early Church when it formulated the infancy traditions that lie behind Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2.[12]

Jesus' twelve disciples were probably about Jesus' age (in their 30s) or younger (in their 20s), so none of them would have been present when Jesus was born. 

Jesus' father Joseph disappears from the Gospel accounts before Jesus began his ministry:

Joseph is gone from the scene when the Gospels describe Jesus' adult life, though he was apparently remembered by those around Jesus as his father...and as a carpenter (Matt. 13:55). The gospel of Mark makes no mention of Jesus' father, and calls him instead "Mary's son" (Mark 6.3).[13] - The Oxford Companion to the Bible

 

So, Jesus' father was probably dead before any of the Gospels were written.  

Jesus' mother, Mary, was allegedly still alive during his ministry and crucifixion, but if she was 16 years old when Jesus was born, and if Jesus was born about 5 BCE, then Mary was about 20 years old in the year 1 BCE. So, in the 80s CE (when the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew were probably written), Mary would have been between 100 and 109 years old when the birth stories were composed! 

But very few people in first-century Palestine lived to be 90 years old. Only about one in a thousand women who were 20 years old in 1 BCE would have lived to be 90 years old.[14] 

Furthermore, even if Mary had lived to be 100 years old, she would likely be experiencing dementia at that age, and even if her mind was still functioning well, her memories of what had happened to her more than eight decades in the past (around 5 BCE) would be unreliable. Thus, if the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew were composed in the 80s, as most NT scholars believe, then it is very unlikely that their birth stories came directly from a reliable eyewitness to those alleged events.  Therefore, it is very likely that the birth stories are, at best, second-hand or third-hand stories.  

STRIKING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO BIRTH STORIES

The Jesus scholar Marcus Borg gives a second reason for doubting the historical reliability of the birth stories in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew:

The second reason is the striking differences between Matthew's birth story and Luke's birth story. ...

1. The genealogy of Jesus.  Both Matthew and Luke trace the genealogy of Jesus back through Joseph to King David and beyond.  But the genealogies differ significantly. ...

2. The home of Mary and Joseph. In Luke, Mary and Joseph live in Nazareth but because of the census travel back to Bethlehem, where the birth occurs in a stable.  They go back home to Nazareth after the birth.  In Matthew, Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem and the birth occurs at home (not in a stable).  The family then moves to Nazareth after spending time in Egypt.  Matthew has no trip to Bethlehem. 

3. Birth visitors. In Matthew, "wise men from the East" follow a special star to the place of Jesus' birth.  Luke has neither wise men nor star but instead angels singing in the night sky to shepherds who then come to the manger. 

4. Herod's plot. In Matthew, Herod the Great orders the killing of all male infants under the age of two in Bethlehem. The family of Jesus escapes by fleeing to Egypt.  Luke's story has neither Herod's plot nor a trip to Egypt. 

5. Use of the Hebrew Bible. Both Matthew and Luke use the Hebrew Bible extensively, but they use it differently. Matthew uses a prediction-fulfilment formula five times in his birth story: "This took place to fulfill that which was spoken by the prophet." Luke, on the other hand, echoes language from the Hebrew Bible without treating it as fulfilment of prophecy, especially in the great hymns that he attributes to Mary (the "Magnificat") and Zechariah (the "Benedictus").

There are other differences as well.  But these are enough to make the point that we have two very different stories.  Though some of the differences can perhaps be harmonized, some seem irreconcilable.[15]

Many NT and Jesus scholars agree with Borg that it is very difficult to reconcile these two very different birth stories with each other:

• John P. Meier[16]  
• Raymond Brown[17]  
• E.P. Sanders[18]  
• Geza Vermes[19]  
• John Crossan[20] 
• James Charlesworth[21]  
• Jürgen Becker[22]  
• Bart Ehrman[23]  
• Paula Fredriksen[24]  
• Robert Funk[25]

In view of the conflicts between the two birth stories, the Jesus scholar E.P. Sanders draws this conclusion:

It is not possible for both these stories to be accurate. It is improbable that either is.[26] 

                                                                                                                             

THE STORIES LOOK LIKE LITERARY CREATIONS

The Jesus scholar Marcus Borg gives a third reason for doubting the historical reliability of the birth stories in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew: 

The stories look like they have been composed to be overtures to each Gospel. That is, the central themes of each birth story reflect the central themes of the gospel of which they are a part. For example, for Matthew Jesus is "the king of the Jews," and so his ancestry is traced through the kings of Judah.  For Luke, Jesus is a Spirit-anointed social prophet, and so his ancestry includes prophets.  For Matthew, Jesus is "one like unto Moses," and the story of Herod's plot calls to mind the story of Pharaoh ordering the death of all newborn Hebrew boys in the time of Moses.  Luke emphasizes the spread of the gospel into the Gentile world (especially in the book of Acts), and so the ancestry of Jesus is traced back not simply to Abraham the father of the Jewish people, but to Adam, the father of Jew and Gentile alike.  In short, the stories look like the literary creation of each author.[27]

The events and details contained in both birth stories fit too neatly with the themes and theology of the authors of those stories, suggesting that the stories were not based on historical facts but, rather, on the imaginations of the authors of the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew. 

CONCLUSION

Based on various general considerations, we previously concluded that the changes and additions made by the author of the Gospel of Luke to the stories found in the Gospel of Mark are probably historically unreliable. 

Given this reasonable assumption, and given that most mainstream scholars view the birth stories in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew as unhistorical legends, and given the three reasons presented by the Jesus scholar Marcus Borg for viewing the birth stories as unhistorical, we may conclude that it is probable that the birth story in the Gospel of Luke is a historically unreliable addition to the stories found in the Gospel of Mark.

END NOTES

1. Robert Funk and The Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins Publishers, 1998), see the list of "Birth & Infancy Stories", p.564.

2. James Charlesworth, The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2008), p.67.

3. Craig A. Evans, "Context, Family, and Formation" in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, edited by Markus Bockmuehl (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2001), footnote #7, p.22. 

4. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Volume 1 (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1991), p.350. 

5. Marcus Borg, "The Meaning of the Birth Stories" in The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999), p.182.  

6. James D.G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making, Volume 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003), pp.344-345. 

7. Geza Vermes, The Nativity (London: Peguin Books Ltd., 2006), p.97.

8. Marcus Borg, "The Meaning of the Birth Stories" in The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright, p.179. 

9. E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York, NY: Penguin Books USA Inc., 1993), pp.83-86.

10. E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, p.88.

11. Marcus Borg, "The Meaning of the Birth Stories" in The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright, pp.179-180. 

12. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Volume 1, p.209.

13. Philip Sellew, "Joseph (Husband of Mary)." in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993), p.382. 

14. See my post "The Life Expectancy of the Eleven Disciples" for more information about life expectancy in first-century Palestine.

15. Marcus Borg, "The Meaning of the Birth Stories" in The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright, pp.180-181. 

16. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Volume 1, pp.211-213.

17. Raymond Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1973), pp.52-54. 

18. E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, pp.83-90.

19. Geza Vermes, The Nativity, pp. 17-19.

20. John Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins Publishers, 1994), pp.4-23.

21. James Charlesworth, The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide, pp.63-68.

22. Jürgen Becker, Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 1988), pp.20-24. 

23. Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp.36-38. 

24. Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999), pp.18-27. 

25. Robert Funk, Honest to Jesus (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins Publishers,1996), pp.292-294.

26. E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, p.86.

27. Marcus Borg, "The Meaning of the Birth Stories" in The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright, p.181.