Matthew – Uniqueness Among the Gospels

Posted on by K.B. Vogelman

Matthew’s Gospel is surrounded by many questions – who, when, what, how – making it a target rich environment for those who wish to challenge its credibility. Parallel passages, dates, authorship and variation from other Gospels are all called into question.

Much of the details of the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth are found only in Matthew. Less than a third of Matthew’s content is common to Mark. Slightly more than a third of the content of Matthew is not in common with Luke … Matthew’s subject matter is in many ways unique.^[1]

Variation actually enhances the authenticity and credibility of Matthew. In the world of investigations, written statements that too closely resemble each other are immediately suspect of deception.^[2]

Truthful, credible statements are expected to be consistent with key evidence as well as with other witness statements, yet characteristic variation is most certainly expected. A basic investigative principal: the more details, the harder to cover a deception; conversely, a deceptive statement lacks details making it more difficult to validate.

“There must, therefore, naturally arise great differences among writers, when they had no original records to lay for their foundation, which might at once inform those who had an inclination to learn, and contradict those that would tell lies…” – Josephus ^[3]

Distinct diversity from Luke can be seen immediately in Matthew with the genealogy of Jesus listed in reverse order along with some generational variations.^[4] Three miracles and at least 10 parables found in Matthew do not appear in any other Gospel.^[5]

Joseph‘s personal circumstances are told only in Matthew such as his contemplation of divorcing Mary for becoming pregnant by another man. His mind was changed by an angel’s visitation message that Mary’s childbirth would fulfill the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy of a virgin birth and instructed Joseph to name the baby “Jesus.”

Any question about “Bethlehem of Judea” being the birthplace of the Messiah was addressed by Herod’s own Jewish religion experts. Herod asked where Christos could be found and they cited the Micah 5:1/2 prophecy.

Exclusive to Matthew are the unusual circumstances of the mystic Magi; their astronomy perspective; King Herod’s treachery and the King’s death shortly after the birth of Jesus. Details of Herod’s chaotic final days are described by historian Josephus.

Combined with Luke’s Nativity account, Matthew’s historical and astronomy attributions raises the bar of Gospel answerability to the highest degree.

Established is a narrow timeline window for the birth of Jesus with five date markers – the rules of Augustus, Herod, and Quirinius; a Roman Empire registration plus “his Star.” The Gospel also names secular historical figure Archelaus, Herod’s son, who ruled in Judea after the King died.^[6]

Literary analysis and literary criticism are among important scientific methodologies used to assess credibility.^[7] Integrity of the Gospel alone can be evaluated entirely based on assessing just its content.

One of the most famous teachings of Jesus, unique to Matthew, is the famed “Sermon on the Mount” including nine verses of Beatitudes, all beginning with “Blessed are…” Covering 106 verses through three chapters, the sermon’s details required an eyewitness.^[8]

Perhaps the biggest clue from Matthew to the divine nature of Jesus is from his personal perspective as One who watched Jerusalem throughout its history. The author of Luke chose to include Matthew’s quoted statement of Jesus in his own investigative report:^[9]

^{MT 23:37} “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!” _(NKJV)

Moving to the crucifixion, burial and the Resurrection, Matthew solely recounts details surrounding the death of Jesus. Described by the Gospel are an earthquake, stones split in two, and tombs being opened with bodies coming back to life.^[10]

Precluding several conspiracy claims, Matthew uniquely describes the chain of custody over the body of Jesus – the crucifixion by Rome; burial by a member of the Jewish Council; the Jewish leadership’s request for Pilate to secure the tomb exclusively using the Greek word koustodia; and the early morning events of Sunday.^[11]

Morning of the Resurrection, Matthew includes the lone accounts of several key happenings – the angel rolling away the stone from the empty tomb; the earthquake; the proclamation of the angel; dereliction of the Guards and their report to the chief priests. Later that same day, Matthew includes the resurrected appearance of Jesus to women of Galilee.

Use of common reference materials evidenced by the parallel passages, sometimes verbatim, appears in all three synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.^[12] Parallel passages cited as alleged credibility issues can be attributed to legitimate literary protocols of the day.

Copying from another source to serve as a “witness” was a respected form of citation and corroboration. It was common practice to copy from another source, even verbatim, without a citation. Abuses of this practice by the Greeks were the focus of Josephus in his work, Against Apion.^[13]

Authorship of Matthew is not claimed within the Gospel itself. Not penning a work was characteristic Jewish practice for reasons of humility, to avoid bringing fame or attention to the author. Examples of other Jewish works without authorship or a formal identify are the authors of books within the Old Testament, the Tenakh.^[14]

Customarily Matthew is believed, based on sources who lived in very close time proximity, to have been written by one of the 12 Disciples of Jesus for whom the Gospel is named – an eyewitness account.^[15] Other scholars and skeptics with differing views believe Matthew was written by someone else; is a collection of stories and oral traditions; or is even completely fictitious.^[16]

Which was written first, Mark or Matthew, is debatable although clearly Matthew is much longer with much more detail. Many religion authorities believe Matthew was written sometime between 55-75 AD; others view the date range from 90-100 AD.^[17]

Both Gospel timeframe possibilities are during the first century when some of the original Disciples were still alive as were probably some from the Sanhedrin who lived at the same time as Jesus of Nazareth. If any details of the information was found to be untrue, no evidence from these contemporaries refutes it.

Portions of Matthew were corroborated by the eyewitness account of John’s Gospel written independently from his prison cell; Luke’s investigative Gospel; and secular history.^[18] Considering the customary literary protocols, the allegation of literary misconduct is rendered to be a non-issue.

What remains to assess the credibility of Matthew is its believability. Are the Gospel’s detailed accounts fabrications… or do the unique details in Matthew indicate truthfulness and credibility?

Updated October 9, 2024.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

REFERENCES:

[1] “Matthew.” Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary. n.d. <http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd/T0002400.html#T0002442> “Luke.” Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary. n.d. <http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd/T0002300.html#T0002331> Carr. The Gospel Acco rding to Matthew, Volume I. pp XVIII – XIX. Gloag, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. p 32-33, 38-42. Sween, Don and Nancy. “Parable.” BibleReferenceGuide.com. n.d. <http://www.biblereferenceguide.com/keywords/parable.html> Swete. The Gospel According to St. Mark, 1902. p XVII, XXIV. Fairchild, Mary. “37 Miracles of Jesus.” ThoughtCo. 2017. <https://www.thoughtco.com/miracles-of-jesus-700158> Ryrie Study Bible. Ed. Ryrie Charles C. Trans. New American Standard. 1978. “The Miracles of Jesus.” Aune, Eilif Osten. “Synoptic Gospels.” Bible Basics. 2013. <www.bible-basics-layers-of-understanding.com/Synoptic-Gospels.html> “Matthew. Easton’s Bible Dictionary. 1897. <http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd/T0002400.html#T0002443> Swete. The Gospel According to St. Mark, The Greek Text with Notes and Indices. p. XXIV. Gloag, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. p. 33 <https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.090193322;view=1up;seq=25>
[2] Sapir, Avinoam. LSI Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation. Basics and advance courses. <http://www.lsiscan.com/id37.htm> “Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN).” Personal Verification LTD. 2018. <http://www.verify.co.nz/scan.php>
[3] Josephus, Flavius. The Complete Works of Josephus. “Against Apion.” 1850. Book I.5. <http://books.google.com/books?id=e0dAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false>
[4] Matthew 1; Luke 3. Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies. Book III. Chapter I.1, IX, XXI.3. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume I. n.d. <http://www.ccel.org/search/fulltext/Heresies> “New Testament – Historical Books.” Jewish Encyclopedia. Gloag, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. pp ix, 39. “PAPYRUS 104 P104 (P. Oxy. 4404) A Very Early Greek Fragment Copy of the Gospel of Matthew.” Christian Publishing House Blog. image. n.d. <https://christianpublishinghouse.co/2020/07/25/papyrus-104-p104-p-oxy-4404-a-very-early-greek-fragment-copy-of-the-gospel-of-matthew>
[5] Carr. The Gospel Accouding to Matthew. Volume I. pp XVIII – XIX. Gloag, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. pp 32-33. Gloag, The Synoptic Gospels. pp 38-42. Smith, Barry D. “The Gospel of John.” F. 5.3.3. 2015. <http://www.mycrandall.ca/courses/NTIntro/John.htm> Sween. “Parable.” Swete. The Gospel According to St. Mark. pp. XIX, XXIII. d<https://books.google.com/books?id=WcYUAAAAQAAJ&lpg=PA127&ots=f_TER300kY&dq=Seneca%20centurio%20supplicio%20pr%C3%A6positus&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false> “Luke.” Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary. “Parable.” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 2018. <http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/P/parable.html> “The Parables of Jesus.” Ryrie Study Bible. “The Miracles of Jesus.” Ryrie Study Bible. Fairchild, Mary. “37 Miracles of Jesus.” ThoughtCo. 2017. <https://www.thoughtco.com/miracles-of-jesus-700158>
[6] Matthew 2; CR Luke 1.
[7] Carr, Frazier. The Gospel Accouding to Matthew. Volume I. p XVIII – XIX. <http://books.google.com/books?id=ZQAXAAAAYAAJ&dq=Swete%2C%20The%20Gospel%20According%20to%20St.%20Matthew&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=Swete,%20The%20Gospel%20According%20to%20St.%20Matthew&f=false> Gloag, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. p 5. <http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008728595> “Gospel of Matthew.” Theopedia.com. “Jesus.” “The Book of Matthew.” Quartz Hill School of Theology. Mareghni, Pamela. “Different Approaches to Literary Criticism.” 2014. <http://web.archive.org/web/20140628042039/http://www.ehow.com/about_5385205_different-approaches-literary-criticism.html> Preble, Laura. “Traditional Literary Criticism.” 2014. <http://www.ehow.com/info_8079187_approaches-literary-criticism.html>
[8] Matthew 5-7. CR Luke 6:20-22.
[9] Mathew 24; Luke 13:34.
[10] Matthew 27.
[11] Net.bible.org. Matthew 27:65. Greek text. “koustodia <2892>.” Lexicon-Concordance Online Bible. n.d. <http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/2892.html>
[12] Fausset, Andrew R. Fausset Bible Dictionary. 1878. “New Testament.” <http://classic.studylight.org/dic/fbd/view.cgi?number=T2722>
[13] Josephus. Against Apion. Book I.1-2, 4-6, 10, 17, 19, 23, 26. Josephus. The Complete Works of Josephus. “Antiquities of the Jews.” 1850. “Preface.” Reed, Annette Yoshiko. Pseudepigraphy, Authorship, and ‘The Bible’ in Late Antiquity. 2008. p 478. <http://www.academia.edu/1610659/_Pseudepigraphy_Authorship_and_the_Reception_of_the_Bible_in_Late_Antiquity> “Custom Cheating and Plagiarism essay paper writing service.” ExclusivePapers.com. n.d. <http://exclusivepapers.com/essays/Informative/cheating-and-plagiarism.php> Cummings, Michael J. “Did Shakespeare Plagiarize?” Cummings Study Guides. 2003. <http://cummingsstudyguides.net/xPlagiarism.html>
[14] Reed. Pseudepigraphy, Authorship, and ‘The Bible’ in Late Antiquity. p 476-479. “Hebrew Bible: Torah, Prophets and Writings.” MyJewishLearning.com. <https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/hebrew-bible> Benner, Jeff, Ancient Hebrew Research Center. 2018. “The Authors of the Torah.” <http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/articles_authors.html>
[15] Luke 13:34. Luke 13:34. Papias. “Papias.” Fragment I & VI. <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vii.html> Gloag, Paton James. Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. p 168. <https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.090193322;view=1up;seq=25> Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies. Book III, Chapter I.1, IX, XXI.3. <http://www.ccel.org/search/fulltext/Heresies> Swete. The Gospel According to St. Mark, 1902. p XIX. <https://books.google.com/books?id=WcYUAAAAQAAJ&lpg=PA127&ots=f_TER300kY&dq=Seneca%20centurio%20supplicio%20pr%C3%A6positus&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false>
[16] Fausset, Andrew R. Fausset Bible Dictionary. 1878. “Matthew, The Gospel According to.” <http://classic.studylight.org/dic/fbd/view.cgi?number=T2722> Didymus, John Thomas. “The Biblical Evidence For a Conspiracy Theory of the Resurrection.” 2010. <http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Biblical-Evidence-For-a-Conspiracy-Theory-of-the-Resurrection&id=4205050> “New Testament – Historical Books.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. <http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11498-new-testament> Smith, Ben C. The Synoptic Project. 2018. <http://www.textexcavation.com/synopticproject.html> Gloag, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. pp. 4-5, 48, 63-64, 106-108. “Gospel of Matthew.” Theopedia.com. “The Lives.” Quartz Hill School of Theology. “New Testament – Historical Books.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. <http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11498-new-testament> Kirby, Peter. “Gospel of Matthew.” EarlyChristianWritings.com. 2018. <http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html> Vick, Tristan D. “Dating the Gospels: Looking at the Historical Framework.” Carr, A. The Gospel According to Matthew, Volume I. 1881. pp XVIII – XIX. Smith, B. D. “The Gospel of Matthew.”
[17] “Gospel of Matthew.” Theopedia.com. n.d. <https://www.theopedia.com/gospel-of-matthew> “The Lives.” Quartz Hill School of Theology. n.d. <http://www.theology.edu/biblesurvey/matthew.htm> Vick, Tristan D. “Dating the Gospels: Looking at the Historical Framework.” Advocatus Atheist. 2010. <http://advocatusatheist.blogspot.com/2010/01/dating-gospels-looking-at-historical.html> Shamoun, Sam. “The New Testament Documents and the Historicity of the Resurrection.” Answering-Islam.org. 2013. <http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/documents.htm> Kirby, Peter. Index. EarlyChristianWritings.com. 2018. <http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html> Smith, Barry. D. “The Gospel of Matthew.” n.d. <http://www.mycrandall.ca/courses/NTIntro/Matt.htm> Etinger, Judah. Foolish Faith. Chapter 6. 2012. <http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap6_history.asp> Shamoun, Sam. “The New Testament Documents and the Historicity of the Resurrection.” 2013. <http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/documents.htm>
[18] Smith, Barry D. “The Gospel of John.” “The Book of John.” Quartz Hill School of Theology. “Gospel of John.” Theopedia.com. “Gospel of John Commentary: Who Wrote the Gospel of John and How Historical Is It?” Biblical Archeology Society. 2019. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/gospel-of-john-commentary-who-wrote-the-gospel-of-john-and-how-historical-is-it/>

Luke – the Investigative Reporter

Posted on by K.B. Vogelman

Luke – the Investigative Reporter

For centuries many have endeavored to prove or disprove the Gospel of Luke’s account about the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Some have focused on the integrity of the content, others on the identity of the unnamed author; however, there are substantial factors to consider.

Among the first to document the identity of the author of the Gospel was Irenaeus, a student of Polycarp who was in turn a pupil of John, one of the original 12 Disciples of Jesus.^[1] Irenaeus identified the author as the Gentile doctor named Luke, the inseparable traveling companion of the Apostle Paul mentioned several times in New Testament books.^[2]

Logic is a big factor – consider he was educated as a doctor and a source just one generation removed from the Disciple John.

Credibility of a statement can be determined regardless of the identity of the author. In this case, the Gospel author’s first defining point of credibility is where his investigative letter is addressed to a specific person.

Theophilus is the same name to whom the Book of Acts was also written establishing both accountability and consistency of the two accounts. Josephus identified Theophilus as the next High Priest after Jonathan circa 37-40 AD.^[3]

Very clearly the author describes to Theophilus the basis of his investigation:

^{LK 1:1-4} “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” _(NIV)

Not himself an eyewitness, instead Luke identifies the sources of his investigation, noted as “many,” being original eyewitnesses and he personally investigated their validity. Evidence can be seen in the quotes and parallels passages found in the older Gospels of Matthew and Mark and corroborated with information by John account.

From a different perspective, the author’s omissions of certain witness accounts and miracles that are mentioned in the other Gospels.^[4]Nearly half of Luke’s content is unique in which 6 miracles are reported, including the resurrection of a dead boy, and 15-17 parables (was it an illustration or a parable?).^[5]

Included in Luke, too, are the exclusive accounts of the birth circumstances of John the Baptist; the identity of his father, Zachariah and mother, Elizabeth, and her role with Mary during their pregnancies; the angel Gabriel with his messages from God delivered separately to Zachariah and Mary, and Mary’s hymn of praise.

Found only in Luke and Acts are the two Greek words, apographo and apographe – a verb and a noun – cited as the motivation for Joseph to take his nearly 9-month pregnant wife, Mary, to Bethlehem 90 miles away. Neither Greek word translates to the equivalent English word of “census,” often imprecisely used in Matthew’s Christmas Nativity story.^[6]

Seven government rulers are identified in Luke, all corroborated in secular history including Caesar Augustus , Tiberius Caesar, Judean King Herod, and Tetrarchs Herod and Philip.^[7] Two “governors,” Quirinius and Pilate, were both identified using the exclusive Greek word hegemoneuo, meaning to act with authority as governors, though not necessarily official “governors.”^[8]

Two specific crucifixion scenarios are found only in the Luke’s Gospel. Quoted is the conversation between the criminals being crucified with Jesus. Upon his death, distraught witnesses reacted by “beating their breasts” in severe mourning.

Distinctively identified and quoted are Resurrection witnesses. Most notable is Cleopas with his traveling partner heading home to Emmaus after being with some of the Disciples that weekend.^[9]

Unrecognized, Jesus joined Cleopas and his partner walking down the road and asked what they were discussing so intently. Cleopas is quoted explaining the sequence of events involving the encounter by the women of Galilee with angels at the empty tomb who proclaimed Jesus was alive and how the empty tomb was confirmed by other unnamed witnesses.^[10]

Corroborating John’s eyewitness Gospel account of the gathering of Disciples and followers in the locked room that Sunday evening, Luke adds a distinguishing depiction of events. Cleopas and his partner had rejoined the gathering telling of their encounter with the resurrected Jesus and, in turn, they were told Jesus had also appeared to Simon (Peter).

Terrified is how the excited group encounter is described by Luke when Jesus suddenly appeared in the locked room. Thinking they were seeing a ghost, Jesus calmed their fears saying “Do you have anything here to eat?” and ate some fish to prove he was not a ghost.^[11]

Omitted is key information which could otherwise enhance the Resurrection account if the author had chosen to do so. Missing is Mary Magdalene’s encounter with the resurrected Jesus and John running with Peter to see the empty tomb, both reported events that astounding morning.

One possible reason for the omissions is revealed in Cleopas’ witness statement. At the point when he departed for home that Sunday morning, it was before anyone had reported seeing the resurrected Jesus.

Omission of Mary Magdalene encounter with Jesus is a big clue that his Gospel is a collection of witness accounts. Luke had to be aware of Mary Magdalene’s encounter with resurrected Jesus through his investigation, by knowing Paul, contacts with the Disciples and interviews of other witnesses.^[12]

Previously, Mary Magdalene was identified as the one from whom Jesus expelled seven demons early in his ministry. Later, Mary Magdalene was one of the three named women generally reported to have run back from the empty tomb to tell the Disciples of their experience.

Only twice in the entire Gospel of Luke is Mary Magdalene mentioned.^[13] No statements are specifically attributed to Mary Magdalene in the Gospel of Luke and therein lies the potential reason for the omission.

Mary Magdalene was not a witness that Luke interviewed. If Luke did not have direct access to her as an eyewitness source, then he chose not to include her secondhand account.

Likewise are similar reasons for not identifying the traveling partner of Cleopas and omitting John running with Peter to see the empty tomb – neither were available witnesses to the author. (In his own eyewitness Gospel, John identifies himself as the “other disciple” who joined the race to the tomb.)^[14]

Forthright acknowledgements, exclusive specific details, omissions of information seen in other Gospels; corroboration by secular history; named witnesses; quotes; lack of personal opinions or injections; and ignored opportunities to embellish – all are hallmarks of a straightforward, true investigative report.

Is Luke’s Gospel authorship and investigative account true?

Updated October 21, 2024.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

REFERENCES:

[1] Schaff, Philip. “Introductory Note to Irenæus Against Heresies.” Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume I. n.d. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. 2005. <http://m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.i.html Schaff, Philip. “Introduction Note to the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians.” Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume I. n.d. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. 2005. <http://m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.i.html Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies. Book III, Chapters I.1, X.1, XIII.3, XIV.1, XIV.1, XIV.2 quoting Luke 1:2, XIV.3, XV.1, 3, XXIII.1. Philip Schaf, ed. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume I. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. 2005. <http://www.ccel.org/search/fulltext/Heresies
[2] Colossians 4; Philemon 1; 2 Titus 4. Irenaeus, Heresies. Book III, Chapter XIV.1. Aherne Cornelius. “Gospel of Saint Luke.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Volume 9. 1910. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm >
[3] Josephus, Flavius. Antiquities of the Jews. Book XVIII, Chapter V.3, Book XX, Chapter VIII.5 & 7; Book XVII, Chapter IV.2; Book XVIII, Chapter V.3; Book XIX, Chapter VI.2; Book XX, Chapter IX.7. The Complete Works of Josephus. Trans. William Whitson. <http://books.google.com/books?id=e0dAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false> CR Josephus. Antiquities. Book XVII, Chapter IV.2. “Theophilus.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. <https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14364-theophilus>
[4] Swete, Henry Barclay. The Gospel According to St. Mark, pp. xxxvix – xl, LXX, LXXII, LXXIV-LXXV. 1902. <https://books.google.com/books?id=WcYUAAAAQAAJ&lpg=PA127&ots=f_TER300kY&dq=Seneca%20centurio%20supplicio%20pr%C3%A6positus&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false Smith, Barry D. “The Gospel of Mark.” Crandall University. n.d. <http://www.mycrandall.ca/courses/NTIntro/Mark.htm> “Introductions to Matthew.” Ryrie Study Bible. Ed. Ryrie Charles C. Trans. New American Standard. 1978. “Introductions to Matthew.” Ryrie Study Bible. “Introduction to the Book of Mark.” Ryrie Study Bible. “Introduction to the Book of Luke.”&Ryrie Study Bible. “New Testament.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. <http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11498-new-testament> “gospel.” ReligionFacts.com. 2016. <http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/texts/gospels.htm> Gloag, Paton J. Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. pp 45, 204.. 1895. <http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008728595>
[5] Gloag, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. pp 38-42. 1895. <http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008728595> Smith, Barry D. “The Gospel of John.” F. 5.3.3. Crandall University. 2015. <http://www.mycrandall.ca/courses/NTIntro/John.htm Sween, Don and Nancy. “Parable.” BibleReferenceGuide.com. n.d. <http://www.biblereferenceguide.com/keywords/parable.html Sween. “Parable.” Swete. The Gospel According to St. Mark, pp. LXXIV, 83. 1902. <https://books.google.com/books?id=WcYUAAAAQAAJ&lpg=PA127&ots=f_TER300kY&dq=Seneca%20centurio%20supplicio%20pr%C3%A6positus&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false> “Luke.” Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary. 3^rd Edition. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. n.d. <http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd/T0002300.html#T0002331> “Parable.” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 2018. <http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/P/parable.html> “The Parables of Jesus.” Ryrie Study Bible. “The Miracles of Jesus.” Ryrie Study Bible. Fairchild, Mary. “Miracles of Jesus: From Healing the Sick to Turning Water Into Wine.” ThoughtCo. n.d. <<https://www.learnreligions.com/miracles-of-jesus-700158>
[6] Luke 2; Acts 5. Net.bible.org. Greek text. “aprographe <582>.” Lexicon-Concordance Online Bible. n.d. <http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/0582.html> “apographo <583>.” Lexicon-Concordance Online Bible. n.d. <http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/0583.html> The Complete Works of Josephus. Trans. and commentary. William Whitson. 1850. <https://books.google.com/books?id=e0dAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=census&f=false> Smith, William; Wayte, William; Marindin, G.E., Ed. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. 1890. “apographe.” <https://books.google.com/books?id=Cu89AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA403&lpg=PA403&dq=greek+word+for+census&source=bl&ots=LM1MjmCiJt&sig=1_yjJgyNxcCcSWZvf0QK69IJuMw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjx0oPA04DYAhXo6YMKHebvAEwQ6AEIejAK#v=onepage&q=register&f=false>
[7] Luke 2, 3. Net.bible.org. Luke 2:1 footnote #5 and Greek text. “hegemoneuo <2230>” Lexicon-Concordance Online Bible. Josephus. Antiquities. Book VIII, Chapter XV; Book X, Chapter IV; Book XIV, Chapter IX, & XII; Book XVIII, Chapter VI. Josephus, Flavius. The Life of Flavius Josephus. #9, 17. The Complete Works of Josephus. Trans. William Whitson. <http://books.google.com/books?id=e0dAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false Josephus, Flavius. Wars of the Jews. Book I, Chapter XXVII. The Complete Works of Josephus. Trans. William Whitson. <http://books.google.com/books?id=e0dAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false> Josephus, Flavius. Against Apion. Book II, #22. The Complete Works of Josephus. Trans. William Whitson. <http://books.google.com/books?id=e0dAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false> “Pontius Pilate.” Livius.org. Ed. Jona Lendering. 2014. <http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate01.htm> “legate.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2018. <https://www.britannica.com/topic/legate-Roman-official>
[8] Net.bible.org. Luke 2:1 footnote #5 and Greek text. “hegemon <2232>.” Lexicon-Concordance Online Bible. n.d. <http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/2230.html> Josephus. Antiquities. Book VIII, Chapter XV, Book X, Chapter IV; Book XIV, Chapter IX, X, XII; Book XVIII, Chapter VI; Book XX, Chapter XVIII. Josephus. The Life of Flavius Josephus. #9, 17. Josephus. Wars. Book I, Chapter XXVII. Josephus. Against Apion. Book II, #22.
[9] John 19. Luke 24:18 footnote Ryrie Study Bible. “Cleopas.” Bible-history.com. n.d. <http://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=43&sub=1173&cat_name=Bible+Names+A-G&subcat_name=Cleopas>
[10] Sapir, Avinoam. LSI Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation, Inc. n.d. <http://www.lsiscan.com/index.htm> “SCAN – Scientific Content Analysis (Statement Analysis).” Advanced Polygraph. 2011. <http://www.advancedpolygraph.com.au/scan.htm>
[11] NET, NIV, NLT. Luke 24. CR Mark 16.
[12] 2 Timothy 4; Philemon 1; Colossians 4.
[13] Luke 8, 24.
[14] Luke 24; John 20. Smith, Barry D. “The Gospel of John.” Fonck, Leopold. “Gospel of St. John.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Volume 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1910. New Advent. 2014. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm> Kirby, Peter. “Gospel of John.” EarlyChristianWritings.com. 2014. <http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html> “The Book of John.” Quartz Hill School of Theology. 2017. <http://www.theology.edu/biblesurvey/john.htm> “Gospel of John.” Theopedia.com. Encyclopedia of biblical Christianity. n.d. <http://www.theopedia.com/Gospel_of_John>

Veiled – a Genealogical Fact

Posted on by K.B. Vogelman

Veiled – a Genealogical Fact

Anyone who reads the Matthew and Luke Gospel genealogies of Jesus of Nazareth can easily see they are listed differently – Matthew chronologically works forward starting with Abraham, Luke works backward from Jesus of Nazareth all the way to Adam. Consequently, the variation leads to a controversy where detractors say the lineage inconsistency proves the inaccuracy of the Gospels.^[1]

Divergence between the two Gospels occurs in the interim generations between King David and the birth of Jesus. Matthew and Luke genealogy lists have two names in common when they share ancestors at the end of the Babylonian captivity, Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel.^[2]

Matthew’s genealogy traces back to the House of David through Solomon while Luke tracks the lineage of Jesus back to David’s son Nathan, a different lineage path. Many experts believe Luke’s lineage is that of Mary and was assumed by Joseph under Judaic Law covering her inheritance rights as a Jewish female only-child.^[3]

“Biblical chronology ignores the mother in the lineal descent of generations. The census was conducted “after their families, by the house of their fathers” (Num. §, 2)>.” JewishEncyclopedia.com

Hebrew genealogical records were not just limited to the land of Israel. Jewish historian Josephus wrote they were tracked and recorded by local priests and prophets for all Jews living “at Egypt and at Babylon, or in any other place of the rest of the habitable earth…with the utmost accuracy.”^[4]

Maximum religious importance was placed on Hebrew genealogy for the specific purpose of ensuring the purity of the lineage of the priesthood.^[5] Proof was required that a female was a Hebrew thus necessitating documented credible lineage history.

To become the wife of a Priest, a Jewish woman was subjected to the scrutiny of her “genealogy from the ancient tables” and Josephus used the historical Hebrew scenario to make his point. After the release of the Jews from Babylonian captivity, 565 priests were disqualified from the priesthood “having married wives whose genealogies they could not produce.”^[6]

As a former Priest and Pharisee, Josephus pointed to the Jewish lineage records by challenging anyone who questioned his own heritage to check the public records tracing his family’s ancestry going back 2000 years.^[7] This period of years equates to the same time span covering from Jesus back to Abraham.

Genealogies by Hebrew law were readily available in the Temple until it was destroyed by Rome in 70 AD, seven decades after the birth of Jesus. These records had to include Joseph, Mary and the birth of Jesus.^[8]

Luke records that Joseph and Mary went “to Jerusalem” and paid a redemption price (implying the at Temple) for a sacrifice for a firstborn male in compliance with the Law.^[9] A sacrifice by a priest would not be performed unless the Hebrew lineages of Joseph and Mary were verified.

A truism in the world of investigations is that when information is being intentionally withheld, it is a strong signal to pay attention to it.^[12] Direct acknowledgement of the lineage of Jesus by Judaism is rare, practically unspoken – in this case, silence speaks volumes; however, there are a few exceptions.

Talmud Sanhedrin 43a is a tractate that fell victim to the Censor in the Middle Ages. Restored, the missing content strongly infers that Jesus was of royal lineage because he was associated with the government or royalty; therefore, an exception was made for Yeshu (Jesus) from the Jewish Law for blasphemy or idolatry.^[10]

Sanhedrin 43a Gemara

“With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].’” – Soncino Babylonian translation

“Rather, Jesus was different, as he had close ties with the government…” – William Davidson translation

Rabbi Maimonides, a Jewish sage who lived some 1200 years after the birth of Jesus, produced his renowned work, Mishneh Torah. In it, the Rabbi denounced Jesus as one from the Davidic dynasty who had “aspired” to be the Messiah:^[11]

“If he did not succeed to this degree or he was killed, he surely is not [the redeemer] promised by the Torah. [Rather,] he should be considered as all the other proper and legitimate kings of the Davidic dynasty who died. Jesus of Nazareth who aspired to be the Moshiach and was executed by the court…”

Jewish sages agree that prophecies define the virtually undisputed requirement that the Messiah must be born in the lineage of King David. If Jesus of Nazareth was not born in David’s royal lineage, he could not be the Messiah.

Archenemies of Jesus, the Jewish leadership, were at ground zero with full access to the Temple’s complete Hebrew genealogical records dating back millennia. If the High Priest Caiaphas or the Jewish leadership had simply demonstrated that Jesus of Nazareth did not have royal legal rights to the House of David, it would eliminate any doubt that Jesus is the Messiah.

What is the likelihood the archenemies of Jesus would have taken full advantage of the opportunity to disqualify Jesus as the Messiah if they could have just exposed Jesus of Nazareth was not of the royal House of David?

Updated November 26, 2024.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

REFERENCES:

[1] Lippard, Jim. The Secular Web. 2004. “The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah.” https://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html> “Contradictions Part 6: Jesus’s Genealogy.” Finding Truth. 2011. <https://findingtruth.info/2011/03/11/contradictions-part-6-jesus-genealogy
[2] Matthew 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-38. Dolphin, Lambert. “The Genealogy from Adam to Jesus Christ” Idolphin.org. 2011. <http://ldolphin.org/2adams.html> Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Book II, Chapter 4. <http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/default.htm>
[3] “Paternity.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. <http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11939-paternity> “Historical Commentary: The Birth of Jesus.” Producer John Heyman. Film, Event 3. HistoricJesus.com. <http://www.historicjesus.com/3/history.html> Net.bible.org. Luke 3:23-38 footnotes 69 – 82. Life Application Bible – New International Version (NIV). “The Birth of Jesus” (Luke 2:1-20) History and Commentary.” Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton Illinois, and Zondervan Publishing House. 1991, 1790. Ryrie Study Bible. Ed. Ryrie Charles C. Trans. New American Standard. 1978. Matthew 1:1 Luke 3:23 Footnotes. The House of David. Global Empower Media. image. 2012. <http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_tfUQCGrAsk/UEhE1xBb8ZI/AAAAAAAAH6c/YlnNltTOjcc/s1600/David1.jpg> Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. 1883. Book II, Chapter 4. Maas, Anthony. “Genealogy of Christ.” Catholic Encyclopedia. 2009. Volume 61909. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm> Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible. Luke 3:23. BibleHub.com. n.d. <http://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/luke/3.htm> Gloag, Paton J. Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. 1895. “Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels.” Online Books Page. Pages ix, 39. <http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008728595>
[4] Josephus, Flavius. Against Apion. Book 1, #6-7. The Complete Works of Josephus. 1850. <http://books.google.com/books?id=e0dAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false> “Genealogy.” Jewish Encyclopedia.
[5] I Chronicles 1:24 – 2:10; II Chronicles 2:1-10; Ruth 4:18-21; Matthew 1:5; Luke 3:32. Josephus. Against Apion. Book 1, #6-7.“Genealogy.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6577-genealogy. “Siege of Jerusalem.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2018. <https://www.britannica.com/event/Siege-of-Jerusalem-70> Josephus, Flavius. Antiquities of the Jews. Book III, Chapter XII.2. The Complete Works of Josephus. 1850. <http://books.google.com/books?id=e0dAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false>
[6] Ezra 2:61-62; Nehemiah 7:63-64. Josephus. Antiquity of the Jews. Book XI, Chapter III.10.
[7] Nehemiah 12:23. The Life of Flavius Josephus. #1. CR footnote “t”.
[8] I Chronicles 1:24 – 2:10; II Chronicles 2:1-10; Ruth 4:18-21; Matthew 1:5; Luke 3:32. “Genealogy.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. <http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6577-genealogy >> “Siege of Jerusalem.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2018. <https://www.britannica.com/event/Siege-of-Jerusalem-70 >
[9] Luke 2:22-24. “First-born, Redemption of.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. <http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6138-first-born-redemption-of> Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Book II, Chapter 7.
[10] Soncino BabylonianTalmud. Ed. Epstein, Isidor. “Introduction to the Seder Nezikin.” Soncino Babylonian Talmud. Shachter & Freedman. “Introduction to Sanhedrin.” Soncino Babylonian Talmud. Sanhedrin Chapter VI, Folio 43a. Greenberg, Eric J. “Jesus’ Death Now Debated by Jews.” Jewish Journal. 2003. Reprinted from The Jewish Week. <http://jewishjournal.com/news/world/8546> Sanhedrin 43a. Sefaria.org. p 21 <https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.43a.22?lang=bi>
[11] Maimonides, Moses. (aka Rambam.) Mishneh Torah. Ed. Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund, Brooklyn, NY: Sichos in English. “The Law Concerning Moshiach.” Kesser.org. n.d. <http://www.kesser.org/moshiach/rambam.html#SIE Maimonides. Mishneh Torah. Moznaim Publications. Jewish year 4937 (1177 AD). Trans. Eliyahu Touger. Chabad.org. 2015. “Sefer Shoftim” > “Melachim uMilchamot.” <http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/682956/jewish/Mishneh-Torah.htm
[12] “Deception in Research Guidance.” University of Wisconsin-Madison|KnowledgeBase. 2016. <https://kb.wisc.edu/page.php?id=68286> Sapir, Avinoam. LSI Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation, Inc. n.d. <http://www.lsiscan.com/index.htm “SCAN – Scientific Content Analysis (Statement Analysis).” Advanced Polygraph. 2011. <http://www.advancedpolygraph.com.au/scan.htm Lesce, Tony. “SCAN: Deception Detection by Scientific Content Analysis.” LSI Laboratory for Scientific Interrogations, Inc. 1990. <http://www.lsiscan.com/id37.htm Gordon, Nathan J.; Fleisher, William L. Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques. p12. 2011. <https://books.google.com/books?id=JuMzKpFu93IC&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=interrogation+if+they+didn%27t+answer+the+question,+they+just+did&source=bl&ots=V4cf3Z1kjl&sig=NeRLKyFKMRr66SWtUQxbLrByKrY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_2Z3phb_aAhVBgK0KHWMQDOA4FBDoAQgtMAE#v=onepage&q=concealing%20information&f=false Napier, Michael R. Behavior, Truth and Deception. 2017. “Nonresponsive Subject.” p56. <https://books.google.com/books?id=eEUrDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT95&lpg=PT95&dq=Sapir+if+they+didn%27t+answer+the+question&source=bl&ots=95gjQFQYg9&sig=gUOEC7Aiq-yFgqUEA4VClHyzNhA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjspeHFkr_aAhVwjK0KHab-DF0Q6AEIRjAC#v=onepage&q=nonresponsive&f=false