¶1There are so many times that I've heard people say, read Luke's preface. He has interviewed Mary. >> And I thought, well, I'm not sure. I'm not sure he's saying that. >> Should we talk about Luke then?
¶2Because Luke >> Luke seems sort of more promising on these historioggraphic features because obviously you have that opening preface, you know, the first four verses of the gospel. I mean, tell us about them. What is that telling us about his project? >> Yeah. Yeah.
¶3So Luke, like a lot of other ancient biographers, begins his work with a notice about his his sources and he also talks about his purpose, the precedent for his work. But he he credits his his story and the things that he's going to share to those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. >> So eyewitnesses and servants of the word. >> Now what's fascinating is we have this notice about sources, but it comes before the birth narrative. Yeah.
¶4>> Right. So then we cut to the birth narrative. And I think as in other places in ancient biography, this is telling us that these source claims that he's making apply equally to the birth narrative, right? And and scholars have disputed that. But I think if if we found this kind of notice in any other ancient biography, like if we find it in Pho does something very similar, we find the same kinds of things in Plutarch and Suatonius.
¶5If we were seeing this in any other ancient biography, it would be really clear to us that these claims apply to apply to the birth narrative. Right? >> What what do you make of the idea that Luke's birth narrative proper is an insertion into the gospel? Because if you read Luke's preface and then you just jump to chapter 3, it reads all quite nicely. But his infancy narrative proper is is is written in quite a distinct style which kind of echoes the the the Greek style, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible.
¶6Um what do you what do you make of that idea that the the birth narrative itself is a later insertion? >> Yeah, I just don't see depend Well, first off, I think we have to ask are we talking about later but still by the same author? >> Uh it could be. Yeah, it could be that. or are we talking about later by a different author?
¶7Right. I think >> because some people think [clears throat] that Luke had sort of finished his gospel, maybe at that point come across Matthew's birth narrative >> um and then and then decided to essentially rewrite it and and include his own things with within his own interests. >> Um so it it could be something like that as well, but there are many many options on the table. >> Yeah. Yeah.
¶8Yeah. I certainly don't think there's any evidence for it being a different author. And that was really I think the the major contribution of say the Raymond Brown birth of the Messiah era of scholarship to say >> these these birth narratives both Matthew and Luke's are very much woven into integral to the theological program of the author and also they the events their style and those kinds of things. So yeah, >> I think that that's been pretty well established and it would take a lot to overturn that. Now uh if we're talking about later but still Luke, I don't really know how we would tell that.
¶9I just don't see the the evidence for that. Now, can you read the story and say, "Well, if I if I read Luke 1 1:4 and then pick up in chapter 3, it all works." Okay, fine. You can say that. But that doesn't establish anything, right? So, I wouldn't really regard that as any kind of evidence that Luke is inserting this later.
¶10Uh I've actually in my first monograph uh the revelation of the Messiah I actually spent a lot of time showing how Luke's birth narrative christoologgically actually fits really well in into the rest of the gospel. >> And I I think that you know if we read Luke closely I think he's doing a number of things there that connect very well to the rest of the gospel. And I I would be surprised if this was a later Lukean even a later Lucan insertion. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
¶11There are so many times that I've heard people say, "Read Luke's preface. He has interviewed Mary." >> And I thought, well, I'm not sure. I'm not sure he's saying that. >> Yeah. >> Um, but is there any evidence for a kind of family source, maybe a Marian source within the gospel, or can we just not really tell?
¶12>> So, I think there in terms of the preface, I think there are two different ways you could read that >> and and think about the birth narrative. And uh one way would be to say when Luke says eyewitnesses and servants of the word and that's that's where he's getting his information. >> When he says that one thing he could mean is hey the eyewitnesses and servants are kind of the apostles and other other Christian other early Christians who were with Jesus during his adult ministry. And so he's saying I received this information from them, >> right? Which means that they're not going to be eyewitnesses of the birth material proper, but they're they are going to be eyewitnesses of other parts of Jesus ministry have close connections to other people.
¶13So that might put you one more level removed. >> I think it's also possible that what he's saying is that actually one of those eyewitnesses and servants of the word was someone who was there for those events or for many of them and maybe even multiple people. But I think clearly the most obvious candidate there is Mary. So I think then we have some some options before us in the preface and then we kind of move into the birth narrative and we have to see how Luke's going to develop that. >> Now when we when we want to when we talk about possible family sources, I think that the two clear places to go within the birth narrative would be Luke 29 and then verse 51 as well.
¶14And both of these verses talk about Mary and it says that they uh Mary was preserving all the words in her heart. >> And there's a little bit of an addition there uh pondering them in her heart in in Luke 21:19. >> So we have to ask what does that mean? And I've spent I spent a whole chapter on these two verses in my first monograph, the revelation of the Messiah. and I I did do a really deep dive into what's going on with them and what are the possible literary backgrounds for those verses.
¶15>> One of the things scholars have noticed is that there are a lot of parallels to those kinds of sayings in various kinds of revelatory literature. M >> so particularly in apocalyptic literature and testaments and when I when I first saw that it was a little bit unnerving to me to say okay what what in the world is is going on there right because that doesn't seem like a natural way to mark out out let's say an eyewitness or something like that right to use something from apocalyptic literature >> but as I dug into it what I discovered was actually the the closest parallels verbal parallels to those two sayings uh the closest parallel is in Daniel 7:28. So the very end of Daniel chapter 7, Daniel has, of course, this vision of the four beasts, the son of man. He receives the interpretation of that. And then at the end, it says that he he preserved the words in his heart.
¶16Actually, I think it's the word. He preserved the word in his heart. >> And these other sayings that we find in apocalyptic and testamentary literature, those are interesting, but largely they help us to interpret what's going on with Daniel. By the way, this wouldn't be the first time that Luke has uh referred to Daniel in his birth narrative. I spent another chapter in that in that work talking about Luke's use of Daniel in chapters 1 and two of his gospel.
¶17So, for example, the most obvious connection is Gabriel is the angel that shows up in in Luke 1. And Gabriel's biblical appearances are limited to Daniel 8 and 9 and then Luke 1. I mean, so that that's kind of your obvious clue, but then there are lots of little other little illusions >> to it. For example, Zechariah's muteness seems to be an illusion to Daniel's muteness at one point in and Daniel 9 or Daniel 10. >> So you you'll have those kinds of connections as well.
¶18So here here's why all that matters. >> Yeah. >> When we look at Daniel 7, now we have sort of a literary context to say, okay, what could Luke be doing? How might he be reading that? And then how might he be using that?
¶19Well, in Daniel 7, you have this this sequence of events. Uh you have what what I might call revelation. So this this vision that Daniel has. >> Okay? And then you have uh preservation.
¶20So Daniel preserves it in his heart. And then I would say also you have communication of that. And what I mean by that is at the very beginning of Daniel 7, it says that Daniel had a vision or a dream and then he wrote it down. >> Okay? So he the sequence implied then is revelation.
¶21He preserves it in his heart and then he actually puts it in writing later. So there's a period between when he put it in writing when he was preserving it internally. Right. >> Okay. So then Mary, Luke's saying, is doing that same thing.
¶22Right. She's preserving in her heart, which suggests there's going to be a time where it comes out. Right? Now, does Mary actually write it down? We don't know.
¶23But Luke has already told us at the beginning of his narrative or I guess of his work that he did write it down. Right? So, it's almost like you have Luke and Mary splitting the Daniel role. Mary's the one who preserves, right, preserves these words in her heart. and then Luke is ultimately the one who's going to put them in put them in writing or who has put them in writing for us anyway.
¶24So I think when you read it in that context, it is not merely an eyewitness claim for perhaps but is certainly making that clear. And I think it these are portraying Mary as the ultimate source of of the account. [music] >> [music]