Infancy Narrative Harmony Question

[PurdueEngineer]

It is worth noting that Mr. Staples agrees with my assertion that Luke took place up to two years after Matthew. But Mr. Staples explanation seem to say that the Magi went to Nazareth and not Bethlehem. Now, I did assume - you could say - that the Magi found the Holy Family in Bethlehem… but I’ve never heard anyone offer anything different. This is the first I’ve ever heard of the Magi arriving in Nazareth.

And while this is possible, it doesn’t strike me as what Matthew was getting at. It also strikes me as odd that Joseph would be warned to quickly flee Nazareth in light of a massacre that was about to occur in Bethlehem,

On my blog I presented two alternate solutions:

http://actsapologist.blogspot.com/2014/11/do-infancy-narratives-contradict.html

 

[Gorgias]

It is worth noting that Mr. Staples agrees with my assertion that Luke took place up to two years after Matthew.

PurdueEngineer:

Herod discerns the age of Jesus to be 2 years.

In Matthew’s Gospel (2 years later) the Magi find the Holy Family

Tim Staples:

Christ would have been ca. 1 to at most 2 years-old (though I would again say it would be unlikely Christ would have been a full two years-old)

To be fair, I think it’s stretching the truth to say that Staples agrees with you that Jesus was two. But, he does agree that Jesus wasn’t a newborn infant at the time of the visit of the magi; which, if I recall correctly, isn’t anything that was asserted here…

But Mr. Staples explanation seem to say that the Magi went to Nazareth and not Bethlehem.

Yeah… I found that to be a head-scratcher, too. Given the lack of specificity in the texts, though, it’s (strictly speaking) plausible…

And while this is possible, it doesn’t strike me as what Matthew was getting at. It also strikes me as odd that Joseph would be warned to quickly flee Nazareth in light of a massacre that was about to occur in Bethlehem

Well, under this theory, Joseph isn’t being warned to flee Nazareth so much as he’s being warned to flee Herod. This would lead us to see Matthew’s statement in 2:20 as making perfect sense: now that Herod’s kingdom was quartered, and Archeleus ruled over Bethlehem but not Galilee, Joseph is warned to go where Herod Antipas rules.

On my blog I presented two alternate solutions:

Interesting article… but your “U-Haul” suggestion seems to be problematic. First, it’s not that “the Holy Family made yearly trips to Jerusalem”, it’s that all faithful Jews were beholden to do so! So, if you’re arguing a personal hardship, that’s difficult to reconcile. Moreover, once they ‘moved back’ to Galilee, they were back to the 60+ mile trip to Jerusalem; so, it’s difficult to perceive this as the motivating factor for a relocation to Bethlehem.

Moreover, “the scandal of living at home” was something they’d been dealing with since Mary’s return from her visit to Elizabeth. Further, it didn’t keep them from going back to where they were from. So, if they were simply fleeing Archeleus, and continuing to attempt to avoid scandal… why return to Nazareth?

p.s., I find it amusing that you see my reaction to your OP assertion of discrepancies in the accounts as unreasonable, while on your blog, you take offense to the priest whose homily asserts discrepancies. Delightful.

 

[Darryl_B]

Yes. The text does suggest that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem, any journey to Jerusalem would be reasonable enough from that location, and then went straight to Egypt without having opportunity to return to their home, and then when they returned they chose to live in Nazareth, a location that was not their original home.

 

[PurdueEngineer]

It wasn’t that the priest asserted there was incomplete data, or things that leave questions. That’s what I assert. He literally said there were contradictions and that being a believing Catholic wasn’t as important as being nice to people.

As for returning back to Nazareth after Egypt, I think they were choosing between two homes. One would put them in mortal danger, the other was a place where their reputation was tarnished. I believe they chose the latter for safety’s sake.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Gorgias,

As I said up above, the core of the quandary is in Luke 2:39. The idea that Jesus was about two years old when the Magi arrived is not materially necessary for the quandary. All that is needed is for the magi to arrive after the purification.

That text says, or seems to say, that the Holy Family went from the Temple in Jerusalem directly to Nazareth. So the question is: If the Magi arrived after the purification, why did they find the Holy Family in Bethlehem and not in Nazareth?

The notion that Jesus was two when the Magi arrived actually makes the quandary easier to solve, since that allows ample time for the Holy Family to pack their bags and return to Bethlehem.

Now, one could propose that the Magi arrived prior to the purification – during the first 40 days of Jesus’ life. This would seem to present us with another question: How does the flight to Egypt interact with the trip to the Temple? For the text of Matthew seems to indicate that Joseph was warned to flee Bethlehem immediately upon the departure of the Magi. This wouldn’t seem to allow for a trip into Jerusalem.

The harmonization you proposed doesn’t seem to incorporate the data of Luke 2:39, which seems to say they went from the Temple to Nazareth. So I’d ask you to reevaluate your answer in light of that. OR if you think your proposed harmonization DOES comport with Luke 2:39, I’d like an explanation of that.

In either case, I am duly chastised for exploring this matter.

Have you read Tim Staples writing on the CA home page on the infancy narratives “contradictions”? It is currently the second one. Might help you.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

The harmonization you proposed doesn’t seem to incorporate the data of Luke 2:39, which seems to say they went from the Temple to Nazareth. So I’d ask you to reevaluate your answer in light of that. OR if you think your proposed harmonization DOES comport with Luke 2:39, I’d like an explanation of that.

In either case, I am duly chastised for exploring this matter.

I am not sure that Luke 2:39 necessarily says they went immediately from the Temple to Nazareth. The verse you quoted simply says that after fulfilling all the precepts of the law they returned to Nazareth. Aren’t you are reading the immediacy into into it?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[PurdueEngineer]

The immediacy of going from the Temple to Nazareth was my starting inference. But in my research I have explored options which don’t presume that.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I’ve searched around and I’ve never seen anyone address this question before. I just asked on the radio program and Mark Brumly was stumped.

Here goes:

Most folks know there is a time gap between Luke’s infancy narrative and Matthew’s infancy narrative. We know this because the Magi don’t set out to see Jesus until after His birth [Matthew 2:1] . Also, Herod discerns the age of Jesus to be 2 years. [Matt 2:16]

Doesn’t Mt 2:1 say that they arrived in Jerusalem when Jesus was born in Bethlehem? Doesn’t that imply that they left the east (i.e. set out) sometime prior to his birth? Aren’t they just describing different events? Would it be more accurate to say Herod discerns that the oldest Jesus could be is two years old (it’s the upper limit)–an that is after the time that has elapsed since the magi departed and failed to return?

HOWEVER, if you look at Luke 2:39, you’ll see that after the Holy Family took the 40-day old Jesus to the Temple, they returned home to Nazareth.

"When they had fulfilled all the prescriptions of the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.” – Luke 2:39

THEN, in Matthew’s Gospel (2 years later) the Magi find the Holy Family in a house in Bethlehem. Matthew 2:11 reads:

“And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him.”

My question was…“What’s that about? Why does it say in Luke that they went home to Nazareth and the Magi find them in Bethlehem?”

Do any of the fine people here wish to take that up?

I do think we read a lot of assumptions into these narratives–that are not necessarily in the text–based on how we read today and on how we have seen the story presented our whole lives.

For example I think we assume–the magi went to Bethlehem because that’s where Herod tell’s them to go, but the next verse says that after they set out (presumably for Bethlehem based on Herod’s instructions) the star appears and guides them to the place where the child was. The verse doesn’t actually say anything about where the star guided them. If we are to assume they are still in Bethlehem (and I think they are) – I think the best reason to think so is because after the departure of the magi the holy family is directed to flee to Egypt because Herod is going to search for the child to destroy him–and we know the massacre of the infants took place in Bethlehem–to me that implies they are still in Bethlehem. Further when, in Matthew, we see them return from Egypt – it appears they are planning on returning to Judea (and by implication Bethlehem–perhaps from that we can infer that they had stayed in Bethlehem after Jesus birth and had planned to return there from Egypt?) but didn’t because they were afraid to when they heard Herod’s son was ruling there. And because of this–they end up going to Galilee and dwell in the town of Nazareth ( note this would be after all the prescriptions of the law had been fulfilled). Matthew tells us why they ended up in Nazareth.

I find nothing in Luke troubling in this regard. Luke 2:39 tells us nothing about the timing of their returning to Nazareth except that it was after they had fulfilled all the prescriptions of the law–which in no way conflicts with Matthew–that is unless you read into Luke 2:39 that they returned immediately–and given what we know from Matthew I am not sure why we would insist on reading the text in a way that could possibly conflict with what we know from Matthews account–but hey I am just a simple man.

What do you make of the verses directly after the verse you find troubling Luke 2:40-52? These seem to apply to their life in Nazareth (where Luke in 2:39 tell us they returned to)–yet don’t we know (or isn’t it most likely) that this is their life after they return from Egypt? Isn’t this just one more thing that suggests we shouldn’t see an immediate return to Nazareth in verse 39 but simply a statement that they did return to Nazareth were Jesus grew up.

The peace of Christ,
Mark