pointing to the section 1:5–2:52 (–<T2,< ver. 3), actually excludes it,
the birth narratives. But we do not for a moment mean to imply that these are the chief or the only grounds by which those theories have been supported. True, some recent writers have taken liberties with the text merely on the ground of preconceived views about the whole course of mythical development. But /pg. 44/ others, more cautious, have attempted to ground their theories in arguments which, while devoid of external support, are yet ostensibly, at least, definitely based upon a fair and minute examination of the text itself. It is this latter kind of argument which we should first examine. In the Gospel of Luke, 1:5–2:52 seems to form a section in itself, and is prefixed to the account of Christ's public ministry, which begins in Luke as in the other Synoptists with the baptism. It is therefore not surprising that critics have seized upon this whole section as a later addition to the Gospel. In this case, however, no argument for regarding the section as an interpolation can be drawn from the account of the virgin birth in itself, as contradicting the rest of the Gospel, which traces the Davidic descent through Joseph. For that contradiction, if it be a contradiction, appears in some respects in an even more striking form within the birth narrative itself than between the birth narrative and the rest of the Gospel.15 But certain other arguments have been offered:
1. Hilgenfeld argues that the prologue of the third Gospel, so far from pointing to the section 1:5–2:52 (–<T2,< ver. 3), actually excludes it, for the things "fulfilled among us" (i.e., in Christianity), the things which had been related by eye-witnesses, could begin only with the baptism of Jesus, since before that time there was no Christianity nor was there any chance for eye-witnessing.
Hilgenfeld is right that –<T2,< does not strictly require that Luke should begin his narrative further back than at the point where the "many" others (ver. 1) had taken up the story, for the –<T2,< may simply be taken with 6"2,>0$H to express the one thought of orderliness or historical method. Yet it is too much to say that the birth narrative is excluded. For, in the first place, as Zimmermann has hinted,16 it is altogether arbitrary to limit the ¦< º:4$< to things