Smoodock's Blog

Some folks have argued that Luke’s account of Jesus’ birth is a second century addition, done in an effort to answer a false nativity account, presumably made up by Marcion, and this false nativity account is the one we find in Matthew. The whole argument used by skeptics and critical scholars is completely subjective, unsupported with any objective evidence from either the Bible or historical data. So, it is argued that both Matthew’s genealogical data as well as his nativity record are completely false, and Luke, or rather one of his disciples, later adds his nativity data in the first two chapters of his work, with his better genealogy in chapter 3 is an effort to correct the falsehood encountered by Matthew’s Gospel. Notice:

“I think (what’s) happened, is the Matthew account (chapters one and two) did not exist, when Luke is amended by whoever does that in about 140 A.D… to retaliate against… a false Matthew, (which) was fabricated… by Marcion. So, that’s what I think happened… Matthew’s Gospel account adds the Virgin birth and the genealogy that, as you can see… it doesn’t make any sense, the short number of (names in Matthew’s genealogy) …the Luke account does look… correct, (and) is more historical I think”.[1]

The argument for the validity of such an opinion comes out of questions like, “Why would Luke deliberately contradict Matthew, if there actually was a nativity narrative in Matthew’s Gospel?” Thus, if Luke knows about Matthew’s account, and most scholars agree he does, due to so much common material, it makes more sense that Luke’s nativity and genealogy records were first designed to correct known errors perpetrated by someone like Marcion.

The problem with the scholar’s argument is that it begs the question. In other words, the argument assumes that the first two chapters of Luke, plus the genealogy in chapter 3, had to have been added to Luke’s narrative, which probably should have begun with chapter 3. Once these parts of Luke’s narrative are assumed to be additions, then we can ask why Luke, or more probably the redactor, added his material. The point is, the argument is fantastical, because there’s not a shred of historical data, showing Marcion made additions to Matthew’s Gospel in the second century AD. The argument is pleaded in order to answer a presumed Lukan addition.

According to the argument, there is a presumed need for a correction to Matthew’s genealogy, because of the Jeconiah line in the text. Notice that he begets Salathiel who then begat Zorobabel (Matthew 1:11-12). The problem with this is Jeconiah was made a eunuch in Babylon. He “begat” no one. The best he could have done was adopt Salathiel from David’s line through Nathan, because Solomon’s line technically ends in Judah’s exile to Babylon. The descendants of the royal line from David through Solomon were either slain or made eunuchs by Nebuchadnezzar, vis-à-vis Jeconiah and Zedekiah (2Kings 20:16-18; 25:7; Jeremiah 52:10-11). If this is so, and the virgin birth is true, Jesus could not technically be a descendant of David through the royal line, or any other for that matter. Therefore, Luke’s presumed correction of Marcion/Matthew makes its way into Luke’s narrative with his genealogy in Luke 3, probably in the second century AD. However, a literal reading of the text offers a natural line through Joseph to David through Nathan, not Solomon, whose natural line ended with Judah’s exile to Babylon. So, Luke’s “addition” of the genealogy in chapter three, presumably, answers the problem of Jesus’ descendance from David at the expense of getting rid of the miracle nativity accounts.

Therefore, Luke’s nativity narrative becomes a later addition for other reasons, and proof of the inauthenticity of a virgin birth is made from scriptures like Acts 2:22, where Peter claims Jesus was a man approved of God through miracles, wonders and signs, which God did through him in the midst of the Jews, Peter spoke with. Since the virgin birth is missing, it is presumed Jesus’ birth wasn’t a miracle, wonder or sign. Another scripture in support of this argument would be Acts 13:22-23, where Paul clearly claims Jesus was of the seed of David, which would be impossible through Joseph, if the virgin birth narrative in Luke is accurate.

Keep in mind that this entire argument stems from a presumption that Matthew’s account of Jesus’ genealogy and nativity was a later addition, presumably begun by Marcion in the second century AD. Therefore, this demands a corrected genealogy by Luke, which wasn’t in the original, according to the argument. Therefore, if Luke needs to add a **natural** descendance from David, the first two chapters in Luke must also be additions, because they argue for a virgin birth which excludes Joseph as the father. Thus, the whole argument begs the question, assuming a need for Luke’s corrected genealogy in chapter 3.

Nevertheless, the entire problem disappears, if Luke’s genealogy is Mary’s, whose father, Heli, had no sons and needs a levirate marriage between Mary and Joseph to give him a son for his line to continue. If this simpler argument is so, then Luke’s genealogy is not an addition to correct a problem with Matthew, and questions about Matthew’s genealogy and nativity narratives must be answered in some other manner, which we’ll consider in the next few studies.

________________________________________________________________

[1] Cited from the transcript of one of “Jesus’ Words Only” videos: Was Luke’s Genealogy & Virgin Birth Added Much Later? Did Mary & Siblings think Jesus had gone mad? Citation begins at about marker 7:42. [All parenthesis in the citation are mine. I deleted words that didn’t make sense, but the reader can check, if I erred; the citation begins at marker 7:42 in the transcript]