Did Luke's Gospel Originally Begin at Luke 3:1?

As we know it, Luke's gospel begins with an address to someone named Theophilus in Lk 1:1-4, followed by an infancy narrative in Lk 1:5-2:52. However, there is significant evidence to support the possibility that Luke's gospel (perhaps an early version) once began at Chapter 3. It is well known that the gospel of Mark contains nothing corresponding to Luke 1-2, but as Waite stated, there were a number of other early gospels that did also not contain any equivalent of these chapters:

The first two chapters of Luke were wanting in the gospels of the first century. They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes, about A. D. 125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. They first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125, and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic.

Waite's date for the Protevangelion (the apocryphal Infancy Gospel of James) may be too early, as there is no mention of it until Origen in the 3rd century, but there is evidence that around A.D. 155 Justin Martyr knew Lk 1:32 and 38 or, perhaps, a common tradition regarding Mary and the angel. Waite is however correct regarding Marcion's Gospel of the Lord, as it did not contain any equivalent to the first two chapters of Luke (See Marcion's gospel vs. Luke 1 and 2), in addition to “the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes.” However, it is not clear whether these latter two refer to different gospels or not. According to Wikipedia:

The Gospel of the Hebrews is classified as one of the three Jewish–Christian gospels by modern scholars, along with the Gospel of the Nazarenes and The Gospel of the Ebionites. All are known today only from fragments preserved in quotations by the early Church Fathers. The relationship between the Jewish–Christian gospels and a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel remains a speculation.

However, in De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men) Jerome writes as follows regarding a Hebrew gospel:

The Gospel also which is called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and which I have recently translated into Greek and Latin and which also Origen often makes use of, after the account of the resurrection of the Saviour says, … (Ch 2)

Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek, though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Cæsarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Berœa, a city of Syria, who use it. (Ch 3)

In Panarion 30 (Against the Ebionites), Epiphanius comments that the Gospel of the Hebrews is a Hebrew version of the Gospel according to Matthew:

3,7 They too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. Like the Cerinthians and Merinthians, they too use it alone. They call it, “According to the Hebrews,” and it is true to say that only Matthew expounded and preached the Gospel in the Hebrew language and alphabet in the New Testament.

He later states that this gospel is “is not the entire Gospel but is corrupt and mutilated,” and that it began:

It came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, <in the high-priesthood of Caiaphas>, that <a certain> man, John <by name>, came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan, and he was said to be of the lineage of Aaron the priest, the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, and all went out unto him.

Whether this gospel was the Gospel of the Hebrews, or the Nazaranes, or an early version of Matthew, and whether originally written in Greek or Hebrew, is not clear. However, from Epiphanius’ statements it does seem that it had a close affinity to Matthew, although it omitted the infancy narrative and so began with the equivalent of Mt 3:1. On the assumption of Markan priority this suggests the possibility that the first version of Luke may have also not contained an infancy narrative, and there are indicators in Luke itself that the material in Luke 1-2 is later than most of the rest of Luke. For example, in Lk 1:32-33 we read:

He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: [Lk 1:32]  And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. [Lk 1:33]

This prophecy is at odds with what we read in Lk 24:21ff, in which the disciples are clearly disappointed that this did not actually happen:

But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: [Lk 24:21a]

In addition, Luke 1 makes it clear that not only were Jesus and John related, but that Mary and Elizabeth had a very close bond: And Mary abode with her about three months [Lk 1:56], so making it very likely that Jesus and John spent time together as they were growing up. This appears to have been forgotten in the baptism scene, in which Jesus and John show no sign of having previously met, and then again in Lk 7:19-23, where John even seems to have forgotten that he had baptized Jesus. This problem of John extends to his parents: Zacharias and Elisabeth (the parents of John) are mentioned eight times each in Luke 1-2, so it is odd to see that in Luke 3:2b John is introduced as “the son of Zacharias,” as if this fact is new to the reader, again suggesting that Luke 1-2 did not exist when Lk 3:2b was written.

The focus on Mary (the mother of Jesus) in Luke 1 is also at odds with the rest of Luke, and also with the other gospels. Mark contains just one reference to this particular Mary (i.e. the mother of Jesus), at Mk 6:3, while there are four reference in Matthew 1-2, one at Mt 13:55 (a parallel to Mk 6:3), and none in the rest of Matthew. In contrast Luke 1-2 alone contains twelve references to Mary, while there are none in the rest of Luke, with Lk 4:22b (the parallel to Mk 6:3 / Mt 13:55) notably referring to Joseph instead of Mary. It is clear that signs of Mariolatry are strongest in Luke 1-2, but non-existent in Lk 3-24. Instead, the later chapters of Luke appear to deliberately resist the worship of Mary: 

And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it. [Lk 8:21]

And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. [Lk 11:27] But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. [Lk 11:28]

Volume III of The Encyclopedia Biblica makes these additional points regarding the apparent lack of knowledge of the content of Luke 1-2 in the rest of the gospel:

Finally, as in the case of Mt. so also in that of Lk. We must conjecture that the gospel once was without the first two chapters (1:5-2:52). Lk.'s proem (1:1-4) speaks in favour of this presumption … as also do the facts that the Baptist is in 3:2 introduced like a person who has never yet been mentioned, and that Jesus at Nazareth (4:16-30) appeals in his own vindication simply to his possessing the gift of the Holy Spirit; so also the further fact that the Baptist (7:18 f) allows the question to be raised whether Jesus be the Messiah or not, without knowing anything of the complete information which, according to 1:41-45, his mother possessed.

Various scholars (including Brown, Ehrman, Fitzmyer, Streeter, and Tyson) have noted that v. 3:1 would have been a very good beginning for a gospel:

Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,

On this point Tyson wrote as follows:

Quite apart from Marcionite issues there are good reasons to think that the infancy narratives were late additions to an earlier version of Luke’s gospel. Raymond E. Brown came to this conclusion in his magisterial study of the birth narratives. He wrote: “Although there have been occasional attempts to join the infancy narratives to the next two chapters, so that a continuous narrative-unit of the Gospel would extent from 1:5 to 4:15, the solemn beginning of the ministry in 3:1-2 could well have served as the original opening of the Lucan gospel.“ Joseph A. Fitzymer agreed. Although he maintained that the Lukan infancy narrative is an integral part of the gospel, he contended that Luke 3:1 was a late addition. “Recognizing this feature of the beginning of chap. 3 makes it imperative to acknowledge the independent character of the infancy narrative and its telltale quality of a later addition.”

A further point is the use of the name of Nazareth in Lk 4:16. Neither of the parallels at Mk 6:1 / Mt 13:54 mention Nazareth by name, instead stating that Jesus “came into his own country.” As Lk 4:16 is derived from this parallel text (taking Markan priority as read) it is not unreasonable to think that this was also originally the case in Luke, and perhaps that it was only later that Nazareth was referred to by name in Lk 4:16. If so, why would Nazareth need to have been named at this point? In both Mark and Matthew by the time Jesus enters Nazareth it has already been established that this is his “own country” (or hometown: patrida),

And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. [Mk 1:9]

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. [Mt 2:23]

Because of these verses in both Mark and Matthew it is not necessary to refer to Nazareth by name either at the beginning of the passage (Mk 6:1 / Mt 13:54) or at the end (Mk 6:4 / Mt 13:57). Luke follows the same practice in the parallel at the end of the passage at Lk 4:24, but in Lk 4:16 Nazareth is not only specifically named, but also recorded as the place where Jesus had been brought up. As there are four previous references to Nazareth in Luke 1-2, at vv. 1:26, 2:4, 39, and 51 respectively, there would appear to be no need to refer to Nazareth by name in Lk 4:16. However, if Luke originally began with Lk 3:1 there would have been no prior references to Nazareth, making it necessary to introduce Nazareth by name at this point. This indicates that the change from: And he … came into his own country [Mk 6:1] to: And he came to Nazareth [Lk 4:16] took place before Luke 1-2 were added, and probably was in the original text of what became Luke as we see it. 

What information do we have on when chapters 1 and 2 might have been added to Luke? P45 and P75, both most likely written in the 3rd century, give us the text of most of Luke. Unfortunately, both are damaged and neither contain Luke 1 and 2, with P45 starting at Lk 6:31, and P75 starting at Lk 3:18, so neither can help answer this question. However, P4 (dated to the 2nd half of the 2nd century) includes verses from all six initial chapters of Luke (vv. 1:58-59;  1:62-2:1, 6-7;  3:8-4:2, 29-32 34-35;  5:3-8; 5:30-6:16), proving the existence of Luke 1-2 no later than the end of the 2nd century. Clearly, dates earlier than this are possible, with suggestions for the possible date of the writing of Luke going back to before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 c.e. but, as Tyson relates:

[John T] Townsend concludes that it is only after about 170 c.e. that we can talk about definite citations and allusions to Luke-Acts. Thus, as he states, "there is no conclusive evidence that Luke-Acts was written in the first century."

Given the paucity of evidence for an early date for Luke, and the lack of any external evidence for Luke-Acts before about 170 c.e., it is entirely possible that P4 was written very close to the time that chapters 1 and 2 were added to Luke, but even if so this tells us nothing regarding whether it originally included Luke 1-2 or not.

Conclusions

The above strongly suggests that Luke's gospel originally began with Jesus’ ministry, and did not include an infancy narrative or any other prior events. If an earlier version of Luke did exist then it is plausible for it to have been written before Matthew's gospel, with canonical Luke not being created until after Matthew's gospel had been written. Adding an earlier version of Luke's gospel into the arena of the synoptic problem significantly affects the possible solutions, leading directly to the Mark with Early Luke (MwEL) Theory.

References

Biblical Hermeneutics: Stack Exchange Was Luke's birth narrative written in response to Marcion's version of the gospel?

Ehrman, Bart D: Did Luke Originally Have Chapters 1-2?, The Bart Ehrman Blog, 2013

Fitzmyer, Joseph A: The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX): Introduction, Translation, and Notes, and review by Stephen G. Wilson

Streeter, B.H: The Four Gospels, 1924

Tyson, Joseph B: Marcion and Luke-Acts: a defining struggle, with a review by Roth 

Waite, Charles Burlingame:  History of the Christian Religion: To the Year Two Hundred, 1881

If you have any comments, questions, suggestions, etc. regarding this topic please email me at davidinglis2@comcast.net