If the author put the name 'Matthew' on his gospel to lend it authority
Apparently, we are going to have to get into the authorship debate, so here goes.
1) Matthew was the second most notorious apostle, next to Judas, because he was a tax collector (Matt 10:3). If you do not believe that tax collectors had bad reputations, look at Matt 9:11, Matt 21:31, Mark 2:16, and Luke 7:34. Tax collectors were always associated with the dregs of humanity, such as "sinners," "harlots," and "winebibbers."
If the author really wanted to give his gospel some authority, he would have used John the 'Beloved Apostle', or Peter 'the Rock' and chief apostle.
2) There is external evidence that Matthew wrote the gospel and there is
no evidence that anyone else wrote it.
Papias and Irenaeus both state that Matthew authored his gospel first, and that it was in Aramaic. However, Papias' description seems to refer to a much simpler document that our Greek Matthew, possible little more than a list of sayings of Jesus.
Ring any bells? Historians (like C. Moule, for example, in his
The Birth of the New Testament) equate this early, simpler Aramaic Matthew with Q.
What follows is that, first, Matthew wrote his simple Aramaic gospel, thus giving him technical priority.
Then Mark wrote his gospel, basing it on the teachings of his master Peter, and possibly incorporating material from Aramaic Matthew.
Next, Matthew wrote a more complete account in Greek. Naturally, he would use his earlier Aramaic text, and since he never had as much information as Peter (such as the Transfiguration), he took material from Mark as well.
Then Luke wrote his gospel, using both Matthew and Mark as sources.
It is true that attributions of the gospel to Matthew begin in the second century, about eighty years hence. However, compare to Tacitus'
Annals. The first attribution of the
Annals to Tacitus is by Tertullian, over 100 years later, yet you will be hard pressed to find a historian who does not agree that Tacitus wrote the
Annals.
As for the authorship of Mark, once again, no one would have attributed an apochryphal gospel to him; this owing to the fact that he was not even an apostle.
And, once again, all external evidence agrees that Mark wrote the gospel.
It is interesting to compare the synoptic gospels, where Joseph is not considered to be Jesus' real father (Mt. 1:18, Mt. 22:45, Mk. 12:35-37, Lk. 1:31-35), to the earlier writings of Paul and 'John', where he is considered to be (Acts 2:30, Acts 13:23, Rom. 1:3, 2Tim 2:8, Heb. 2:16, Rev. 22:16).
First of all, the Acts quotes do not belong here. Reading the first verses of Luke and Acts will make it abundantly clear why:
Luke 1:1-4
Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seems good to me also, having had perfect understanding of allthings from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.
Acts 1:1-3
The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
[Emphasis mine]
Obviously, Luke and Acts were written by the same person. Do you think he would be so stupid as to contradict one of the basic tenets of his earlier work?
Not that it matters. The Acts verses you cite (just like the2 Timothy and Revelation verses) refer to Jesus as a flesh-and-blood descendant of David, which is perfectly in line with my understanding of the Luke geneology as Mary's.
The Romans verse refers to Jesus both son of God and seed of David in the same verse, and once again there is nothing about Joseph being Jesus' literal father.
Now, the Hebrews verse is the funniest. Read it for yourself:
For indeed He [Jesus] does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham
This verse does not mention the ancestry of Jesus at all
.
Attributing Luke's genealogy to Mary is pure speculation, and can only be supported by rewriting scripture to suit that end. You have to insert Mary into the narrative although her name doesn't appear.
You yourself have provided two pieces of evidence for this "speculation."
The first is that the geneology is through Nathan, so it cannot be an "invention to support a messianic claim." What other purpose could it serve, then, than to accurately record Mary's geneology?
The second is that, when the Luke author wrote Acts, he made it perfectly clear that the Luke author believed Jesus was
physically a descendant of David; thus, since he definitely believed in the virgin birth (see Luke 26-38), he must have believed Mary was a descendant of David.
You have to assume that when 'Luke' wrote son of he really meant to say son in-law of even though he was perfectly well capable of expressing the concept (Lk. 12:53).
Here is the beginning of the geneology (Luke 3:23):
Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,
All the punctuation was added by modern translators to aid modern readers' understanding (like the italicized words). An equally legitimate reading would be:
Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, (being as was supposed the son of Joseph), the son of Heli
Now the "son of Joseph" part is supposed, and Jesus is directly called the son of Heli, presumably his grandfather on his mother's side.
You have to assume that an Israelite woman can pass on a title that she herself cannot hold.
This is not an assumption, see my earlier post; "Num 7:1-11; Num 36:1-12; Lev 25:25; Dt 25:5-10."
Then, of course, you have to assume that 'Luke' wouldn't bother to explain that the genealogy was Mary's because you assume that his readers would be familiar with the book of 'Matthew'.
Markan/Matthean priority arguments aside, all scholars agree that Luke was written after Matthew.
Add to this that Luke's "audience" is one person, Theophilus, and that Theophilus is already familiar with teachings concerning Jesus (See Luke 1:3-4, quoted above).
Luke... suggests that Mary, like her cousin Elizabeth, is a Levite (Lk. 1:5).
Luke "suggests" no such thing. He clearly states that Elizabeth is a Levite in this verse; so what? If Elizabeth's father was a Levite, that would make her a "daughter of Aaron" without requiring all her cousins to be Levites.
In naming Neri as the father of Shealtiel, Luke is at odds with any other references within the bible (you don't suppose he made an error, do you?).
Of course I do not suppose he made an error; if his S/Z are not the same people as Matthew and Jeremiah's S/Z, there is no possibility of error.
Your idea that there is another Shealtiel, father of Zerubbabel would seem to be original, as I have yet to find it suggested by anyone else. Most sources imply that Jeconiah was the natural father and Neri the adoptive one, although that seems rather speculative to me.
I can assure you that it is not
my idea. According to the
Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Babylonian cuneiform tablets indicate that Zerubbabel was a common name in the Persian period.
Also, the online
Catholic Encyclopedia, found by your link, describes Shealtiel as a "common Jewish name."
In any case, Jeconiah's curse isn't all that vital to the argument.
I whole-heartedly agree.
That would be an unfulfilled prophecy.
That would be a prophecy
fulfilled by Jesus.
Where as Luke seemed to be more wrapped up with the birth of Jesus, (typified in the addition of 2 chapters on the subject ) including the divine conception, and taken Jesus's lineage through Mary.
This makes a lot of sense. The Luke geneology, unlike Matthew's, is not in legal format (Matthew's starts with Abraham and goes forward; Lukes starts with Jesus and goes back).
Luke's geneology goes all the way back to Adam, so it is more too establish Jesus'
human descent (a legal descent only went as far back as Abraham).
Also, if Luke himself wrote the book of Luke (very likely), it makes sense that he would be interested in the human linneage of Jesus and Jesus' miraculous birth, since Luke was a physician (Col 4:14).
