Matthew's Christology is not adoptionistic, he understands Jesus as "son of God" from birth... the son of Mary (who may or may not be of Davidic descent in the author's mind) conceived through the Holy Spirit. If he thought Joseph was Jesus' biological father (or intended to include this alternative tradition) he would have plainly said so by continuing the formulae "And x fathered y, and y fathered z" right down to Jesus... but he doesn't, he alters it when he gets to Joseph so it is clear he is not Jesus' father in any capacity other than being married to his biological mother.The whole point of the genealogy is to establish Jesus credentials as the messiah, i.e., that he is a male-line descendant of David, like all the previous messiahs, who were similarly adopted as the son of God.
Matthew does not record both traditions (see critique above). Luke, on the other hand, is a collector of traditions and his work reflects a number of different Christologies. That said, I think the author's own view is similar to that of Matthew's on this matter and thus considers Jesus as "son of God" from birth... the son of Mary (who is of priestly lineage) conceived through the Holy Spirit and heir to the Davidic throne through his biological mother's marriage to Joseph. We discussed Luke's gospel many months ago and, as I recall, came to no agreement on this particular topic... I remain unconvinced that Luke's narrative is ambiguous on the matter of Jesus' relationship to Joseph.The author of Matthew let obliged to record both.
I think it interesting how the author of Luke clearly recognised this, so carefully words both to allow for the other.
Paul, author of some of the earliest writings of the New Testament, also thinks Jesus is a pre-existent divine being... your strictly linear trajectory of increasingly higher Christologies is thus not defensible, at least when applied to the biblical documents. You need a more sophisticated stratification model that acknowledges the development of high Christologies by the time of Paul's Asiatic travels and letter writing, as well as a lengthy process in the latter half of the first century during which competing models of Christology flourished and were eventually amalgamated in the second century and onward.There is no virgin birth in John because the Christology has got higher, and now the belief is that Jesus was pre-existing,
Number of references and familiarity are entirely different things... Matthew is quite clumsy with several of his citations. For example, what or who he is citing at 2:23 is anybody's guess, he perhaps misattributes 13:35 to Isaiah (see the critical apparatus), blunders at 21:5 in thinking there must be two donkeys, mixes up his Zechariahs at 23:35 and does misattribute 27:9-10 to Jeremiah or, on a more charitable interpretation, jumbles up the words of two prophets, one of whom actually was Jeremiah. Matthew could give some Christian posters here on CARM a run for their money in terms of clumsiness with their own sacred texts...The author of Matthew, more familiar with scripture - as evidence by numerous references throughout his gospel...
PS - Did you catch my response to you over in the human rights thread a week ago? It did take me a week or so to get back to it so if you did read it and want to leave things as they are, that's cool, too.