Jesus and the Gospels

[Abyssinia]

How many people first approached the empty tomb?
One. Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1)
Three. Two Marys and Salome (Mark 16:1)
Four. Two Marys,Joanna, and the other woman (Luke 24:10)
Two. Mary Magdalene and the “other Mary” (Matthew 28:1)

The accounts aren’t contradictory, but complementary. All of the women mentioned went to the tomb, but some accounts are selective in who they mention. Omissions are not errors, though; some of the accounts may be incomplete, but that doesn’t make them contradictory.

errancy.com/which-women-went-to-jesus-tomb/

On first reaching the tomb by whom and where were the women greeted?
By no one at all (John 20:1,2)
By one man sitting inside (Mark 16:5)
By two men standing inside (Luke 24:4)
By one angel sitting outside (Matthew 28:2,5)

Those are the first ten of twenty-five discrepencies in the Gospel ressurection accounts.

Matthew 28:1-7

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”

Mark 16:2-7

Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

Luke 24:1-8

On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’” Then they remembered his words.

John 20:11-13

Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?”

“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.”

Matthew’s account of the angel rolling away the stone probably occurred while the women were en route to the tomb, so that only the guards saw the angel sitting on the stone. (See Steve Poling’s article, C18, for an explanation of why Matthew can be read this way.)

John’s account of Mary Magdalene and the angels is a separate event; Mary had likely gone back to get Peter and John before the other women encountered the angels. (See the harmonization of the tomb visit.)

Clearly there were two angels, as described in Luke and John. The second angel may or may not have appeared to the guards, but did appear to the women entering the tomb. It’s likely that only one angel spoke, hence Mark only mentions one angel. While Mark and Luke refer to men instead of angels, the men are wearing white/“in clothes that gleamed like lightning” and their appearance causes the women to be greatly distressed, which is consistent with Matthew and John’s descriptions of the angels (as well as other descriptions in the Bible of people encountering angels).

Were the angels standing or sitting? Apparently, the phrase “stood beside” could also be translated "appeared."1 Therefore the angels were probably sitting when the women saw them; they may or may not have been seated as Mary Magdalene saw them later, one at the head and one at the foot.

The three speeches are easily merged into one speech - see the harmonization of the tomb visit.

Footnotes

1. See Resurrection Puzzle by Steve Hinrichs, point 3.7; also Luke 24:4 in the NAS Interlinear Bible

rationalchristianity.net/angels_tomb.html

 

[Vince1022]

I need more help on how long Jesus was in the Grave.

“For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew xii, 40).

But what do Mark, John, and Luke say about how long Jesus was in the grave?

I need specific verses in each Gospel.

Specifically in John does he say anything about Jesus rising on the third day?

I have found these:

Jesus said of himself -

Matthew 12:38-40 KJV
38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Jesus referred to -

Jonah 1:17 KJV
17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

The Scribes and Pharisees claim that Jesus taught -

Matthew 27:63-66 KJV
63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

Jesus repeatedly said -

Mark 9:31 KJV
31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.

Mark 10:32-34 KJV
32 And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus went before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him,
33 Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles:
34 And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.

Luke also records similar statement by Jesus -

Luke 9:22, Luke 13:32, Luke 18:33, Luke 24:7 and 46

Then the Apostle taught –

Acts 10:39-42 KJV
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

The only information we have is contained in the Gospels. So, reading the 4 Gospels will give you all the info available regarding how long Jesus was in the grave.

Yes, later preachers, teachers, Bishops, and theologians will comment on this, but it’s all based on the Gospels.

 

[Vince1022]

What are these twenty five discrepancies?

Is it not trie that there are four historical facts attested to by historians?

• Jesus’ burial
• the discovery of his empty tomb
• his post-mortem appearances
• the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.

How long Jesus was in the grave and when he rose? Do all the gospels, Luke, Matthew, Mark and John all say the same thing? Please give specific verses?

Historians could dispute any of those items.

Theologians, believers, the faithful, etc. would have a likely different approach than historians.

 

[Vince1022]

There are no “discrepancies” between the Gospel accounts. .

I agree with you, but am wondering how you would consider where Jesus is born according to the Gospels of Luke and Matthew? They give different places. Just curious. Thanks.

 

[Vince1022]

As to when Jesus died and rose–he died on Friday and rose on Sunday.

But the Synoptic Gospels (Matt, Mark. Luke) disagree with the Gospel of John as to what day Jesus dies one. Right?

 

[Vince1022]

The Gospels report that Jesus was crucified with two brigands. Did either of the two brigands believe in Jesus?

No, only one Gospel does. Right? Did I misread something?
chosen people;7266089:

What were Jesus’ last words on the cross?

Depends on which Gospel one is reading.

Did Roman soldiers guard Jesus’ tomb?

Depends on which Gospel one is reading.
.

Was the stone removed when the women first arrived at the tomb?

Depends on which Gospel one is reading.

How many people first approached the empty tomb?

Depends on which Gospel one is reading.

On first reaching the tomb by whom and where were the women greeted?

Depends on which Gospel one is reading.

How many angels appeared at the tomb?

Depends on which Gospel one is reading.

Did the angel(s) tell Mary(s) that Jesus was “risen”?

Depends on which Gospel one is reading

Anyway, that’s my point.

 

[Della]

I agree with you, but am wondering how you would consider where Jesus is born according to the Gospels of Luke and Matthew? They give different places. Just curious. Thanks.

They do?

Mt. 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem…

Lk. 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David,[5 to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. 6 **And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. 7 And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

But the Synoptic Gospels (Matt, Mark. Luke) disagree with the Gospel of John as to what day Jesus dies on. Right?

Not that I know of. Each Gospel writer emphasizes certain aspects of the trial and crucifixion so that some mention things others don’t. It doesn’t at all mean they “disagree”, only that they each tell the same events from different perspectives for different readers.

It’s like 4 reporters attending a White House function. Depending on the reporters’ readership, each will list those persons there and what happened according to his own perspective. So, one or two of them might leave out details or mention of persons that the others left out. It doesn’t mean the WH function never took place or that they colluded together to lie, but rather that they each reported what they believed would be of interest to their particular readership. It’s the same with the Gospel writers. They weren’t being modern historians, but rather they were being story-tellers. Story-tellers relating a true story as they saw it and understood it.

So, there’s no point in debating who was there and who wasn’t in this book or that one, or how many guards are mentioned or who saw what when. None of that matters since it’s like trying to piece together a broken mirror. You can fit the pieces together enough to know what it was, but it will never look like a whole piece of glass. It doesn’t mean it wasn’t a real mirror, only that the pieces are never going to completely fit to make a seamless piece. One day, when we see the whole of human history played out before us in heaven, we will see how it all fits together.

This puts me in mind of a good Agatha Christie mystery in which all the pieces are there but only Miss Marple or Hercule Poirot can put them all together to make sense of what happened and why. I don’t expect to be able to perfectly match up all the pieces of the Gospel accounts–not 2000+ years later. I can only trust the Church Fathers who were closer to the events, many having known the Gospel writers themselves, that they understood how the pieces went together and believed what they had seen with their own eyes and heard with their own ears when listening to the Apostles.

 

[chosen_people]

They do?

Mt. 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem…

Lk. 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David,[5 to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. 6 **And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. 7 And she gave birth to her first-born son

and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

Not that I know of. Each Gospel writer emphasizes certain aspects of the trial and crucifixion so that some mention things others don’t. It doesn’t at all mean they “disagree”, only that they each tell the same events from different perspectives for different readers.

It’s like 4 reporters attending a White House function. Depending on the reporters’ readership, each will list those persons there and what happened according to his own perspective. So, one or two of them might leave out details or mention of persons that the others left out. It doesn’t mean the WH function never took place or that they colluded together to lie, but rather that they each reported what they believed would be of interest to their particular readership. It’s the same with the Gospel writers. They weren’t being modern historians, but rather they were being story-tellers. Story-tellers relating a true story as they saw it and understood it.

So, there’s no point in debating who was there and who wasn’t in this book or that one, or how many guards are mentioned or who saw what when. None of that matters since it’s like trying to piece together a broken mirror. You can fit the pieces together enough to know what it was, but it will never look like a whole piece of glass. It doesn’t mean it wasn’t a real mirror, only that the pieces are never going to completely fit to make a seamless piece. One day, when we see the whole of human history played out before us in heaven, we will see how it all fits together.

This puts me in mind of a good Agatha Christie mystery in which all the pieces are there but only Miss Marple or Hercule Poirot can put them all together to make sense of what happened and why. I don’t expect to be able to perfectly match up all the pieces of the Gospel accounts–not 2000+ years later. I can only trust the Church Fathers who were closer to the events, many having known the Gospel writers themselves, that they understood how the pieces went together and believed what they had seen with their own eyes and heard with their own ears when listening to the Apostles.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The contradiction is concerning where Mary and Joseph were living before Jesus was born.

In Nazareth (Luke 1:26,2:4)

In Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1, 2:16)

The date of the crucifixion is what is contradicted, the 14 of Nissan (the day before passover - Jesus as the Pascal Lamb) or the 15 of Nissan (Last supper being the Passover Seder)

You also inadvertently touched on one of the biggest contradictions. The year that Jesus was born. According to Matthew Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod who died in 4 b.c.e. (Matthew 2:1). However according to Luke Jesus was born in the year of the Roman census (of Quirinius) which occurred in 6 c.e. (Luke 2:1-6,Antiquities 18:1:1, Jewish Wars 7:8:1, Josephus) so we have at least a ten year time difference.

 

[Della]

Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The contradiction is concerning where Mary and Joseph were living before Jesus was born.

In Nazareth (Luke 1:26,2:4)

In Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1, 2:16)

It’s easily reconciled. They lived in Nazareth when the Angel visited Mary, traveled to Bethlehem for the birth, lived there for a while, went to Egypt and returned to Nazareth. As I wrote, each Gospel writer included/excluded those things that he felt necessary for his readers. Matthew wrote mainly for his fellow Jewish readers and so emphasized those things that were witness to Jesus as Messiah. Luke wrote to a Roman official and so emphasized those things he would best relate to.

The date of the crucifixion is what is contradicted, the 14 of Nissan (the day before passover - Jesus as the Pascal Lamb) or the 15 of Nissan (Last supper being the Passover Seder)

Well, I’ve never heard this brought up before–truly, so I really can’t comment. My religion courses in Bible college never covered that, I’m afraid.

By way of explanation, though I would say that the consensus of Sacred Tradition is that Jesus was crucified on that Friday. One of the things our Protestant brethren (those who are divorced from the ecclesial roots of Christianity) and our Jewish brethren often seem not to know is that the Church does not rely on the Gospel accounts to “prove” anything. It can be a hard concept for people who are used to pointing at a verse or passage and saying, “See, that’s what it says right there!” (not that you are) as their exegetical method of determining validity. But, the Church has never used that method. So, Catholics and non-Catholics sometimes end up talking at cross purposes with each other.

You also inadvertently touched on one of the biggest contradictions. The year that Jesus was born. According to Matthew Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod who died in 4 b.c.e. (Matthew 2:1). However according to Luke Jesus was born in the year of the Roman census (of Quirinius) which occurred in 6 c.e. (Luke 2:1-6,Antiquities 18:1:1, Jewish Wars 7:8:1, Josephus) so we have at least a ten year time difference.

Matthew was writing his Gospel account from his knowledge of what took place, while Luke from his. And, as I understand it, the records of ancient times that have come down to us are rather spotty. It doesn’t shake my faith, nor should it.

But thinking logically about it, why would Matthew and Luke be so specific if it were generally known that they were wrong? It doesn’t make any sense. After all, they were writing about real people in a real time and place that could easily be verified by those living at the time. I don’t see it as insurmountable, but perhaps a misunderstanding on the part of historians who find it a problem.

 

[Vince1022]

They do?

Mt. 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem…

Lk. 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David,[5 to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. 6 **And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. 7 And she gave birth to her first-born son

and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

Not that I know of. Each Gospel writer emphasizes certain aspects of the trial and crucifixion so that some mention things others don’t. It doesn’t at all mean they “disagree”, only that they each tell the same events from different perspectives for different readers.

It’s like 4 reporters attending a White House function. Depending on the reporters’ readership, each will list those persons there and what happened according to his own perspective. So, one or two of them might leave out details or mention of persons that the others left out. It doesn’t mean the WH function never took place or that they colluded together to lie, but rather that they each reported what they believed would be of interest to their particular readership. It’s the same with the Gospel writers. They weren’t being modern historians, but rather they were being story-tellers. Story-tellers relating a true story as they saw it and understood it.

So, there’s no point in debating who was there and who wasn’t in this book or that one, or how many guards are mentioned or who saw what when. None of that matters since it’s like trying to piece together a broken mirror. You can fit the pieces together enough to know what it was, but it will never look like a whole piece of glass. It doesn’t mean it wasn’t a real mirror, only that the pieces are never going to completely fit to make a seamless piece. One day, when we see the whole of human history played out before us in heaven, we will see how it all fits together.

This puts me in mind of a good Agatha Christie mystery in which all the pieces are there but only Miss Marple or Hercule Poirot can put them all together to make sense of what happened and why. I don’t expect to be able to perfectly match up all the pieces of the Gospel accounts–not 2000+ years later. I can only trust the Church Fathers who were closer to the events, many having known the Gospel writers themselves, that they understood how the pieces went together and believed what they had seen with their own eyes and heard with their own ears when listening to the Apostles.

I’m sorry.

I “misspoke”.

I meant to point out how Luke and Matthew disagree on where Mary and Joseph lived prior to Jesus’ birth.

Yes, Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

But…Matt and Luke disagree on where Mary and Joseph lived prior to Jesus’ birth. That was my point.

Sorry, again, for my lapse. Thanks.

 

[Vince1022]

Not that I know of. Each Gospel writer emphasizes certain aspects of the trial and crucifixion so that some mention things others don’t. It doesn’t at all mean they “disagree”, only that they each tell the same events from different perspectives for different readers.

They do disagree. Read the Gospel accounts.

According to the Gospel of John, Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover (the day the lambs were slaughtered). See John 19:14 ff.

According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus was crucified on the Passover. See Matt, Mark, and Luke’s accounts.

 

[Vince1022]

It’s easily reconciled. They lived in Nazareth when the Angel visited Mary, traveled to Bethlehem for the birth, lived there for a while, went to Egypt and returned to Nazareth.

Not so easy for some (many).

Mark and John mention nothing at all of this in their Gospels. Why (if it’s important)?

Matthew’s Gospels does not say they lived in Nazareth before the birth. So, it’s only one of the four Gospels that claims Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth before the birth of Jesus.

Again, only Luke’s Gospel claims they traveled to Bethlehem for the birth. Luke is known to have some questionable historical claims.

Luke does not claim they went to Egypt. That’s only in Matthew (not in Luke, Mark, or John).

Again, yes of course this all could have happened, but it’s nowhere clear simply by relying on Scriptural references.

 

[Abyssinia]

Not so easy for some (many).

Mark and John mention nothing at all of this in their Gospels. Why (if it’s important)?

 

[Chesster]

They do disagree. Read the Gospel accounts.

According to the Gospel of John, Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover (the day the lambs were slaughtered). See John 19:14 ff.

According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus was crucified on the Passover. See Matt, Mark, and Luke’s accounts.

The question is: did the last supper take place on Nissan 14 (which St. John says it did) or did it take place on Nissan 15 (which St. Matthew, St. Mark & St. Luke say).

I’ve seen two possible answers to this:

1. Different sects of Jews at that time like the Essenes followed slightly different calendars and Jesus and His followers celebrated Passover on a different day then the Pharisees because they followed a different calendar.
2. There were too many people in Jerusalem to accomplish all the sacrifices needed in one day so a dispensation was given to some like Jesus and His followers to celebrate the Passover one day earlier.

 

[chosen_people]

The question is: did the last supper take place on Nissan 14 (which St. John says it did) or did it take place on Nissan 15 (which St. Matthew, St. Mark & St. Luke say).

I’ve seen two possible answers to this:

1. Different sects of Jews at that time like the Essenes followed slightly different calendars and Jesus and His followers celebrated Passover on a different day then the Pharisees because they followed a different calendar.
2. There were too many people in Jerusalem to accomplish all the sacrifices needed in one day so a dispensation was given to some like Jesus and His followers to celebrate the Passover one day earlier.

The pascal lamb is always the day before passover. There are no “dispensations” in Judaism and no one to give them. There are no multiple Hebrew calendars - no changing of the dates of religious holidays.

 

[Della]

Not so easy for some (many).

Mark and John mention nothing at all of this in their Gospels. Why (if it’s important)?

Matthew’s Gospels does not say they lived in Nazareth before the birth. So, it’s only one of the four Gospels that claims Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth before the birth of Jesus.

Again, only Luke’s Gospel claims they traveled to Bethlehem for the birth. Luke is known to have some questionable historical claims.

Luke does not claim they went to Egypt. That’s only in Matthew (not in Luke, Mark, or John).

Again, yes of course this all could have happened, but it’s nowhere clear simply by relying on Scriptural references.

Your last point is exactly what I’m trying to get at here. None of it matters because the Church doesn’t use the Bible as a proof text, but as a witness. It is up to the Church to determine if such accounts need to be “reconciled” or not, but the truths of the Gospels do not rise or fall because of such things.

Apparently, the Church isn’t interested in explaining, blow by blow who did what when and why based SOLELY on Scripture. We Catholics use many sources including Scripture to sort out the truth. Does this mean that the NT is “unreliable”? No. It only means it’s not to be used for the purpose of ascertaining every little detail recorded by the Gospel writers.

Every time someone starts a new thread, making a big whoop-de-doo out of the supposed “discrepancies” of the NT, I feel like screaming knowing people will debate points that have no solution based SOLELY on the scriptural accounts. I don’t care to waste my time in useless debates of that kind. Maybe it’s because I’m a woman and have bigger fish to fry (sometimes literally), but truly, I don’t see why it’s such a big deal. I really don’t.

 

[Vince1022]

Lk 2:1-5 mentions it:

Yes, of course. The only one of the four Gospels to mention it.

But does it say Mary lived with Joseph in Nazareth, that is what I am confused about. According to this article, it does:

lookinguntojesus.net/ata20060205.htm

This seems to explain it also: tektonics.org/af/birthnarr.html#cont

Again. the only information we have from Scripture is in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew.

Matthew’s account does not give the details of how Joseph and Mary came to be in Bethlehem, but begins with his birth (Mt 2:1-2). It is the questioner’s assumption that the house spoken of (Mt 2:11) was located in Bethlehem. The text does not say so.

Right. So, given the text does not provide any explanation, most would assume that no explanation was necessary. In other words, they were already in Bethlehem. Given Matt’s description of their going to and from Egypt, if they were not already in Bethlehem for the birth, why would Matt not include an explanation?

And of course this begs the question, when the text does not “say so” (as you correctly note) what is required for belief? What is probable for the understanding of the contemporary audience, given the written text?

The infant Christ was taken into Egypt

[Matt 2:14,15,19,21,23]

According to Matthew’s Gospel, only, yes.

The infant Christ was not taken into Egypt

[Luke 2:22, 39]

According to Luke’s Gospel, only, yes.

Luke does not say that the infant was not taken into Egypt as neither account is exhaustive (those who look for contradictions often overlook the fact that Biblical accounts are rarely exhaustive in their scope). We can easily harmonize the accounts as follows:

Journey of Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem; birth of the child; presentation in the Temple; return to Bethlehem; visit of the Magi; flight into Egypt; return to settle in Nazareth.

Yes, many have similarly tried to reconcile the accounts of Matt and Luke similarly. Despite the apparent differences (if not contradictions…e.g. the genealogies!).

The point is, neither account is required to be accepted as historical truth.