Dan McClellan, a critical scholar of the Bible and religion argues that Luke, chapter 1 & 2 are later additions to his Gospel narrative. I presume, he doesn’t include Luke’s preface, Luke 1:1-4, in his argument, because in other YouTube videos Dan uses Luke’s material there to argue for something else that does support his worldview. So, strictly speaking, Dan probably has in mind Luke 1:5 to the end of chapter 2. So, the question is, does Dan’s argument that chapters 1 & 2 of Luke’s Gospel narrative are later additions to his narrative seem true, and is it supported in the text or elsewhere in history?
Keep in mind, as we continue in this analysis, that Dan’s mention that Luke 1 & 2 are possible, probable or factual additions puts him in the same place that he puts apologists, when he claims the only reason they try to harmonize the texts is to prove a dogma they already believe, and in doing so they do not accept/believe the text that is before them. In other words, if Luke, chapters one and two, contain no real evidence that they are later additions to the rest of the body of Luke’s narrative, and if there isn’t any historical data to support his argument, then it is Dan who doesn’t take the text seriously and argues as he does, because there couldn’t possibly be a virgin birth. The question, therefore, is, does Dan present possible, probable or factual evidence to reject the virgin birth, or is he merely making a “not impossible” plea in support of his dogma? Let’s take a look.
At first, Dan claims that Luke’s first two chapters are later additions, because the Greek in the text is different from the rest of Luke’s material, beginning in chapter 3. First of all, Dan doesn’t offer any examples in support of his statement that the Greek is different, so I’m unable to reply to that, except to say, if Luke 1:1-4 is really Luke’s material, and Dan seems to believe it is according to other YouTube videos of his, then Luke could simply have added the testimonies of certain individuals, who had sworn out statements, which were recorded earlier. Luke, himself, could have added these testimonies in their own words, and this answers to his statement that he had followed data to its source (Luke 1:3). So, if the Greek is, indeed, different in the first two chapters, this doesn’t have to mean, they were later additions. Luke could have added the sworn testimonies just as they appeared and continued with the rest of his narrative. Nevertheless, Dan says:
“…the Greek of chapters 1 and two is quite distinct from the Greek of the rest of the Gospel of Luke. We also have Luke 3:1 beginning the way we might expect the entire gospel to begin, laying the scene by saying: “In the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea and Herod was ruler in Galilee” and so on. Then we go right into the baptism of Jesus, which is precisely how Mark begins their gospel, and then after the baptism of Jesus the author says: ‘hey let’s talk about where Jesus comes from.’ But, we already had two whole chapters talking about where Jesus came from, and then we moved on to Jesus’s adulthood. So, it seems a little out of order.”[1]
While Luke 3:1 begins an account of Jesus’ public ministry, just as Mark begins his, if we accept the testimony of Papias in the 2nd century AD that Mark wrote down Peter’s Gospel in Latin to the Romans, then “Mark” was a transcript of what Peter preached, probably from the beginning. The point is, while a document that is written down for study and analysis could have genealogies and birth records, such things are rarely (if ever) used during lectures or preaching. The fact that Luke begins with a nativity, which Mark leaves out shouldn’t be a surprise. Moreover, if the historical data of Luke 3:1-2 is to be understood as having some significance, what should we do with Luke 2:1-2? How does the one have significance and the other not?
Next, Dan argues that Luke’s genealogy is out of order. How so? Is it out of order, because Dan says so? If he is correct, is it important, and who gets to say—Dan or someone else? Does Luke’s placement of Jesus’ genealogy, after his baptism, have another meaning? Luke tells us that at Jesus’ baptism the heavens were opened (Luke 3:21), but what does this mean? If the rebellion of Genesis 3 closed the heavens to mankind (Genesis 3:22-24), then the opening of them at Jesus’ baptism might point to the coming of the promised Seed, or the Seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15), and if this is a correct analysis of the text, then it would be precisely proper to offer Jesus genealogy immediately after his baptism, and go all the way back to Adam, which also points to Eve as the mother of all living (Genesis 3:20). In other words, at his baptism the author of Luke presents Jesus as the promised Messiah.
__________________________________________________________________________
[1] See Dan’s YouTube video: Luke 1 & 2 Were Likely Secondary Additions. Citation begins at marker 0:24.
Smoodock's Blog 