On Luke 1:5-2:52 and the nativity story
This is admittedly long, so the TL;DR is the nativity story in Luke 1:5-2:52 is most certainly not original to the text and a much later addition
(special thanks to Scott Bignell and his blog at: https://jesustweezers.home.blog/2019/01/18/the-case-against-luke-1-2/ who has compiled the data that I’m summarizing & referencing throughout below)
Well, it's that time of year where people read the "nativity story" as found in the early chapters of the Gospel of Luke.
However, did you know there's considerable internal & external evidence to call the story into serious question? The overwhelming data suggests Luke 1:5-2:52 is not original to the gospel and was a later insertion.
Here are some things to consider:
1. the gospels attributed to Matthew & Luke(1) both include "infancy gospels", a genre that rose to fame in 100-200 CE. The gospels of Mark & John begin at Jesus' baptism, well into adulthood.
2. the virgin birth in infancy gospels depend on the mis-interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 in the Greek Septuagint/LXX translation(2), wherein "young woman" in Hebrew (עלמה, ʿalmah) was translated to the Greek word parthénos (παρθένος), which could mean either “young woman” OR a woman who has not yet had sex. However, if it was explicitly a virgin, the Hebrew would've clearly been betulah (בתולה), which only means a “virgin" - but it wasn't.
3. for context, the author of the first portion of the book of Isaiah(3) spoke with King Ahaz stating that the young woman IS with child (i.e. now, currently) (4), and that by the time that unborn baby reaches adulthood(5) Jerusalem will have not been conquered and will be prosperous(6). i.e. the "prophecy" Isaiah refers to about the kid, Immanuel "God is with us", was already fulfilled in King Ahaz's day and was not born to a virgin (and that kid is also very likely Hezekiah, but that's another story)
4. "Dialog with Trypho" in the 2nd century (100-200 CE) even calls out the error of the misinterpretation of the Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14 and virgin birth narrative - this is not a modern concept
5. Early Church Fathers reference sects with versions of Matthew that omit the virgin birth story. Tertuliian & Irenaeus both make reference to versions of Luke in popular circulation at the time (~150 CE) that don't include chs 1-2
6. Luke 3-24 & The Acts of the Apostles(7) are written in standard koiné style of Greek. Luke 1:5-2:52 is written in the Semitic form of Greek
7. No details from Luke 1:5-2:52 are ever referenced again in Luke+Acts or any of the epistles, speeches of Paul, Peter, Stephen, etc. (why doesn't Paul ever refer to the virgin birth?? That'd be huge!)
8. The beginning of Luke 3 reads like a proper biographical introduction then jumps straight to his baptism(8)
9. John the Baptist is for some reason re-introduced in the narrative (3:2) despite having already been introduced in 1:44, when no other "Johns" have been mentioned in the story.
10. It's incredibly strange that Jesus' genealogical lineage is not declared in chs 1 or 2 around his birth, like in Matthew. In fact, it isn't given until AFTER his baptism in adulthood.
11. Some of the earliest manuscripts have God referencing Psalms 2:7 at Luke 3:22 when Jesus is baptized, “You are my Son. TODAY I have begotten you”, which doesn't make sense if he was already begotten thru a virgin birth of God+Mary as in Luke 1-2. However, it does make sense amidst the context: Jesus became God's begotten upon his baptism, and Luke 1-2 aren't original to the text.
12. This also makes sense why the author of Luke declares Jesus' lineage via Joseph (again, AFTER his baptism). If Luke 1-2 is legit, then Joseph has ZERO blood relation to Jesus, and this lineage shouldn't be here at all. However, it makes perfect sense for this linage to be here if Jesus is actually just the literal blood son of Joseph+Mary - and the virgin birth/nativity story found in Luke 1:5-2:52 is a late addition and truly not part of the original text.
Needless to say, there is overwhelming data within & without which suggests the content of Luke 1:5-2:52 was not originally part of the Lukan gospel.
As is what we have now as the 4 gospels are at best 25yrs removed from Jesus' lifetime (most likely much later). They are definitely not firsthand accounts and in many places contradict one another. There were other gospels proposed to be included in the canon, however the early church (around 397 CE) decided to only include these four because they were attributed to either an initial disciple (the tax collector [Matthew/Levi] & John) or traveling companions of disciples (Mark for Peter & Luke for Paul)
So, based on the above data, what do you think?
the gospels are at best pseudepigrapha, none of the gospels internally claim their authorship, these gospel names are later additions by tradition or early Church Fathers
the authors of the writings in the New Testament depend upon the Greek Septuagint translation and do not use the actual Hebrew bible when they reference what we now call the Old Testament
yes, there are at minimum two authors of Isaiah - one who lived prior to the Exile [chs 1-33] and one that lived after [chs 34-66] - possibly even 3: original, Deutero- AND Trito-Isaiah
i.e. in the present tense and NOT some future Messianic prophecy
Isa 7:15 - that kid will be enjoying the fruits of their own land, which won't have been annihilated by the northern coalition
within 12 years - the age when a Jewish male reaches adulthood
Luke & Acts are almost certainly written by the same author based on context, grammar usage and linguistic style, etc
similar to the beginning of Mark