Thinking as a first century reader, I would find Jesus’ ancestry, birth, and childhood to be that of someone important, but at the same time I would be a little skeptical. I would be skeptical because Jesus’ ancestry, birth, and childhood is not mentioned in the first gospel written, Mark. Also, at that time there were other people going around saying that they had a special birth and ancestry like Apollonius of Tyana. It would not have been as rare to hear something like Jesus’ birth and ancestry like it would today.

I think that Matthew and Luke added elaborate stories such as birth and ancestry stories to heighten Jesus’ status and make his story more concrete. Many people found Jesus to be a controversial figure and Jesus’ rivals would have been looking for gasps in his story, so I think that Luke and Matthew were trying to fill those gaps. They also added such elaborate stories for usefulness and to keep the Jesus movement going. If there were not such elaborate stories then people would not of had a reason to keep talking about Jesus.  As Lynch states, usefulness of Jesus’ stories increased the chances that the stories would survive. Stories about how christians were suppose to live and Jesus teaching them were repeated often. For example, the Beatitudes and the Lord’s prayer were repeated in both Matthew and Luke. I think the gospel writers strategically repeated certain theological teachings to increase their importance.