Problems With the Bible-Nativity Story

[jinc1019]

One of the many roadblocks for me becoming Catholic is the church’s teaching on infallibility. My future father-in-law, who turned me on to this website a short while ago, constantly tells me that the Church has never made a mistake on issues of “faith and morality”.

But if the Church is ultimately the one who selected which books are to be in the Bible, and if the Church teaches that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then the Bible MUST NOT conflict with itself. Since God is all-knowing and since it would be against God’s nature to inspire something that is false, it makes no sense that God would inspire gospel writers to write something that is not true. In fact, if anything in the Bible is completely false, then it cannot be divinely inspired. It follows then that if something in the Bible is not divinely inspired, then it proves the Church is capable of making mistakes on issues of faith.

The perfect example of this is in the gospel story of birth of Christ. In the Gospel of Matthew and the Luke, there are two COMPLETELY different accounts of what happens during and after the birth of Jesus. In one account, Jesus is born in a manger. In the other, there is no mention of a manger. In one account, there are three wise men, but the other account only mentions sheep herders. In one account, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus go to Egypt after his birth. In the other, the entire family goes directly to Jerusalem and then to Nazareth. In one account, King Herod orders the murder of all male children (I believe under the age of 2) in Bethlehem. In the other, there is no mention of this at all! In one account, Joseph goes to Bethlehem because of a mandated Roman census. In the other, there is no mention of a census. It seems to me that certain elements of the two gospel accounts (NOT ALL) cannot exist in harmony. There is a clear conflict and both stories cannot BOTH be right. Therefore, if one story must have some untrue elements in it, then it stands to reason that certain parts of the Bible are capable of being incorrect. Because the Church put the Bible together, it is impossible that the Church has never been wrong on issues of faith and morality.

The reason I am bringing this issue here, to a place where almost everyone will disagree with me, is because I want to be proven wrong. I really do! I just cannot reconcile these differences in my mind or my heart.

 

[PrayHarder]

It seems like all your examples are of the “This Gospel mentions [this] and the other Gospel does not mention [this].” However, because a particular detail is left out of one does not make it a conflict or makes the entire account untrue.

For example, suppose someone asked two people what the weather is like. One says it is cloudy and the other says that it is lightly raining. Well, you can’t discount the forcast saying that both of them are untrue because the one who said it was cloudy didn’t mention that there was some light rain. Both accounts can be true even when someone omits a detail.

A better example would be how I proposed to my wife. We both know that it happened but we have very different memories of that day. We just remember different details of the same event. She said I seemed very calm while I remember being a nervous wreck. She remembers a nice sunset while I remember they day being quite overcast. But just because we recount that event differently doesn’t make it untrue. The same can be said about the Gospel writers. They chose to describe the same event differently.

I look at your examples and I could weave a consistent narrative between the two accounts. For example, who’s to say that shepherds didn’t come first and then the wise men a little later? Or maybe one writer didn’t think the shepherds being there was all that important to the overall story. Just some thoughts.

 

[quasimodo]

there is an old saying …
If two people tell the sames story exactly, someone is lying.

No two people experience the same thing the same way and encounter the same effect on their lives.

All of scripture is an account of how people encounter(ed) the divine and their reflection on that encounter. God helped them to tell the story accurately and well, but it remains the story of the person and people who experienced God in their life (lives). So if they told exactly the same story, you would know it was fixed.

Plus we must take into account the fact that the authors had no interest in an exact blow by blow account of the events …( that is an impossible expectation we have today as a result of something German historians tried to create a couple hundred years ago … we are still waiting for the promise to be fulfilled; Till then we will have to live with the winner writes history model). NO, the old boys were not writing history, they were recording truth … different things.

 

[Ron_Conte]

There are over 35,800 verses in the Catholic Bible.

Suppose that the Bible is infallible in every verse, but you are fallible. If you examine every verse to see if it has any errors, you will make some mistakes because you are fallible. You will misunderstand a verse and think that it is an error when it is not. If you make this type of mistake 5% of the time, you will find over 1700 apparent errors. Even if you make this type of mistake only 1% of the time, so that you are 99% correct, you will still find over 350 apparent errors.

You cannot depend on your own fallible judgment to determine if the Bible is inerrant. If you examine any book and find that it has, in your fallible judgment to your fallible thinking, no errors, in all probability that book has many errors – they are simply the same errors that you fallibly and incorrectly think are true.

The Church teaches that the Bible is entirely inspired, and therefore entirely inerrant. We believe this teaching based on faith, not based on our own examination of every verse. For we are fallible, but God is infallible. And the Bible is the written Word of God.

 

[jinc1019]

It seems like all your examples are of the “This Gospel mentions [this] and the other Gospel does not mention [this].” However, because a particular detail is left out of one does not make it a conflict or makes the entire account untrue.QUOTE]

First of all, thank you for replying and thank you to everyone else who attempted to answer this very difficult question.

The point you brought up is a very important one. However, I think I did a poor job of explaining on my end. You are absolutely correct in saying that both account could be correct in areas where there is clearly room for the two accounts to blend together. Your example of the herders and the wise men both being at the birth scene is a good example of that.

However, certain portions of the account cannot be explained away using the logic you expressed above. Luke 2.21 states: “And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus…” Luke 2.22 continues, “And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jersusalem to present him to the Lord…” These two passages clearly put a time table on the event. Eight days after the shepherds arrived in Bethlehem, Jesus was circumcised. Shortly after that, he was taken to Jerusalem so that sacrifices could be made to God at the temple. This was a common custom. We know it was SHORTLY after the birth because that is what the law of Moses required.

On its own, this account is fine. But what happens when we examine Matthew? Matthew 2.13-15 says:“Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, ‘Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.’ And he rose and took the child and his mother by night, and departed to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt have I called my son.’”

Notice that it says “Rise, take the child and…flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you…” It does not say that they should first go to Jerusalem or that they should wait 8 days before leaving. It says, rise, leave now! And they do!

In addition, we know from historical records that Herod lived for at least a few more years after the birth of Jesus. Matthew tells us that Jesus does not return to Israel until AFTER Herod is dead. But in Luke, Jesus is taken to Jerusalem as a baby and Luke 2.39 says, “And when they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth. And the child grew and became strong…”

It is very clear that it is immediate…there is no way Luke’s account allows for the trip to Egypt we see in Matthew.

Also, in the passage from Luke I just mentioned above, it is clear that Joseph and Mary are from Nazareth…but in Matthew, Joseph and Mary want to return to Israel to Bethlehem, not Nazareth. The only reason they end up in Nazareth is because they knew Bethlehem was being ruled over by a descendent of Herod (Matt. 2.22).

 

[Della]

Something else that needs to be taken into account is that Matthew and Luke were recording their accounts from hearing it from those who were there at the time. Obviously, contemporaries of Jesus weren’t there at his birth. So, who did they hear the accounts from? In Matthew’s case, we assume Jesus gave an account, telling his immediate disciples those events that would mean the most to them as Jewish men who were pledging to follow him. Matthew was also addressing his fellow Jews, so he emphasized those things that would mean the most to them. Just because he didn’t recount certain things doesn’t mean they didn’t happen, as others have stated. And his account can easily be reconciled with Luke’s, as I’ll get into when discussing Luke’s account next.

Luke, OTOH, was a Gentile writing to another Gentile, giving his account from St. Paul’s preaching as well as the account given to him by Mary. What was Mary more likely to emphasize? What meant the most to her heart? The shepherds and the journey to Bethlehem as a pregnant woman who had to settle for a cowshed and a manger in which to give birth. She no doubt told Jesus all these things, including the journey to Egypt, the Magi, etc., but considering that Matthew had already written about that–Matthew’s was the first Gospel written, contrary to modern speculations, and so Luke had no need to repeat those parts of the story. Besides, he wanted to relate other parts of the story he believed would be of more interest to his reader, to whom the Gospel is addressed.

So, what happened? Mary received the Annunciation in Nazareth. She traveled to Jerusalem for the birth of John the Baptist and returned home. She and Joseph went to Bethlehem. She gave birth and the shepherds came. The Holy Family moved into a house in Bethlehem (probably after the crowds for the census had gone home) to wait for her purification and Jesus’ presentation in the temple. The Magi came just after that. The Holy Family moves to Egypt (while the slaughter of the innocents happens) and then they move back to Nazareth when Herod died.

One of my favorite books is Lord of the Rings. In it Tolkien splits up his characters and follows one set nearly to the end of the story and then the other set. It’s up to the reader to reconcile when each thing was happening to both groups to fit the whole thing together. Something similar is seen in the two Gospel accounts. Matthew and Luke simply tell us about different persons surrounding Mary, Joseph and the Baby and emphasize different events, but all the events happened. What we have is a more complete picture of what happened, not a conflicting one.

The Church understands this and has understood it from the very beginning. You need to acquaint yourself with the Early Church Fathers, some of whom sat at the feet of the Apostles. It was they who told us who wrote which Gospel when and who knew just how the Gospel accounts all fit together. Trying to do this on your own without this background is an exercise in frustration. Trust the Church on this. It’s always known what the facts are and has taught nothing but the truth since 33 AD.

 

[jinc1019]

There are over 35,800 verses in the Catholic Bible.

Suppose that the Bible is infallible in every verse, but you are fallible. If you examine every verse to see if it has any errors, you will make some mistakes because you are fallible. You will misunderstand a verse and think that it is an error when it is not. If you make this type of mistake 5% of the time, you will find over 1700 apparent errors. Even if you make this type of mistake only 1% of the time, so that you are 99% correct, you will still find over 350 apparent errors.

You cannot depend on your own fallible judgment to determine if the Bible is inerrant. If you examine any book and find that it has, in your fallible judgment to your fallible thinking, no errors, in all probability that book has many errors – they are simply the same errors that you fallibly and incorrectly think are true.

The Church teaches that the Bible is entirely inspired, and therefore entirely inerrant. We believe this teaching based on faith, not based on our own examination of every verse. For we are fallible, but God is infallible. And the Bible is the written Word of God.

I have never heard this way of thinking on this issue before and it is rather persuasive to a point. However, there is a HUGE hole in your logic. I agree that because I am fallible, the errors I see are possibly fallible as well. But just because I am capable of being fallible, does not mean I am ALWAYS fallible. Further, the Church, which teaches that the Bible is “entirely inspired, and therefore entirely inerrant,” is made of the same men that are just as fallible as I am. The Church councils, which chose these gospels to be in the Bible, were made of men…not of God. They certainly made the claim that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit…but, if as you pointed out, everyone is fallible, then the Church could be fallible in choosing the books they did or the writers of the gospels could be fallible in retelling their stories. Infallibility is a human trait and alters everything human hands touch.

 

[jinc1019]

Something else that needs to be taken into account is that Matthew and Luke were recording their accounts from hearing it from those who were there at the time. Obviously, contemporaries of Jesus weren’t there at his birth. So, who did they hear the accounts from? In Matthew’s case, we assume Jesus gave an account, telling his immediate disciples those events that would mean the most to them as Jewish men who were pledging to follow him. Matthew was also addressing his fellow Jews, so he emphasized those things that would mean the most to them. Just because he didn’t recount certain things doesn’t mean they didn’t happen, as others have stated. And his account can easily be reconciled with Luke’s, as I’ll get into when discussing Luke’s account next.

Luke, OTOH, was a Gentile writing to another Gentile, giving his account from St. Paul’s preaching as well as the account given to him by Mary. What was Mary more likely to emphasize? What meant the most to her heart? The shepherds and the journey to Bethlehem as a pregnant woman who had to settle for a cowshed and a manger in which to give birth. She no doubt told Jesus all these things, including the journey to Egypt, the Magi, etc., but considering that Matthew had already written about that–Matthew’s was the first Gospel written, contrary to modern speculations, and so Luke had no need to repeat those parts of the story. Besides, he wanted to relate other parts of the story he believed would be of more interest to his reader, to whom the Gospel is addressed.

So, what happened? Mary received the Annunciation in Nazareth. She traveled to Jerusalem for the birth of John the Baptist and returned home. She and Joseph went to Bethlehem. She gave birth and the shepherds came. The Holy Family moved into a house in Bethlehem (probably after the crowds for the census had gone home) to wait for her purification and Jesus’ presentation in the temple. The Magi came just after that. The Holy Family moves to Egypt (while the slaughter of the innocents happens) and then they move back to Nazareth when Herod died.

One of my favorite books is Lord of the Rings. In it Tolkien splits up his characters and follows one set nearly to the end of the story and then the other set. It’s up to the reader to reconcile when each thing was happening to both groups to fit the whole thing together. Something similar is seen in the two Gospel accounts. Matthew and Luke simply tell us about different persons surrounding Mary, Joseph and the Baby and emphasize different events, but all the events happened. What we have is a more complete picture of what happened, not a conflicting one.

The Church understands this and has understood it from the very beginning. You need to acquaint yourself with the Early Church Fathers, some of whom sat at the feet of the Apostles. It was they who told us who wrote which Gospel when and who knew just how the Gospel accounts all fit together. Trying to do this on your own without this background is an exercise in frustration. Trust the Church on this. It’s always known what the facts are and has taught nothing but the truth since 33 AD.

Excellent response. Your explanation for the story is very interesting but I think one thing stands in its way. There is clearly a timetable for when all of the events occur. Luke specifically states that Jesus is circumcised 8 days later, and then is taken to Jeruslaem. If you read the response I made to the very first person who replied to my original post, you will see that the language in the gospels is immediate. After all of the various tasks were performed in Jerusalem, Luke 2.39 says that “they returned into Galilee”. It is immediate…it is right after the event occurred. There is no way this can be reconciled in the way you reconciled it in your post. Luke 2.39: “And when they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city…” How could that passage mean, “They returned to Galilee AFTER going to Egypt for an extended period of time.”?

I respect your opinion greatly but I just don’t think it is possible.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Welcome to the forums!

Here’s how I think it happened: Harmonization of the Nativity Accounts.

Our brother, St. Augustine, gives a different ordering here. John Paul II follows Augustine’s ordering of the return to Nazareth and the flight into Egypt in , 14Redemptoris Custos.

Depending on how I am telling the story of my life, I could say, “When I left the Air Force, I got married.” But between the events of leaving the Air Force and of getting married, I moved from Nebraska to Maryland, got a job as a personal trainer, etc.

To help with the sense of immediacy that the words of the evangelists suggest to your mind, you can think about this: Matthew connects his infancy narrative with Jesus’ adult life by saying, “In those days” (Matthew 3:1), even though decades of time had passed.

I hope this helped! May the grace of God be with you!

With the love of Christ the LORD,
Pete

 

[jinc1019]

Welcome to the forums!

Here’s how I think it happened: Harmonization of the Nativity Accounts.

Our brother, St. Augustine, gives a different ordering here. John Paul II follows Augustine’s ordering of the return to Nazareth and the flight into Egypt in Redemptoris Custos, 14.

Depending on how I am telling the story of my life, I could say, “When I left the Air Force, I got married.” But between the events of leaving the Air Force and of getting married, I moved from Nebraska to Maryland, got a job as a personal trainer, etc.

To help with the sense of immediacy that the words of the evangelists suggest to your mind, you can think about this: Matthew connects his infancy narrative with Jesus’ adult life by saying, “In those days” (Matthew 3:1), even though decades of time had passed.

I hope this helped! May the grace of God be with you!

With the love of Christ the LORD,
Pete

Interesting way of looking at it and I really appreciate the links. They are very helpful and I will be sure to read through them in their entirety.

I certainly understand what you are saying about the language of the text but what I fear is the act of making a conclusion based upon the assumption that the two gospels cannot conflict. When one makes conclusions before looking at the evidence, the evidence becomes tainted from the very beginning.

 

[jinc1019]

Luke, OTOH, was a Gentile writing to another Gentile, giving his account from St. Paul’s preaching as well as the account given to him by Mary. What was Mary more likely to emphasize?

Also, I do not think it is wise to say that Mary would NOT emphasize such a profound event in her life like her husband having a dream where an angel comes to him and warns him of the death of their child (who turned out to be the Messiah)…so they were instructed to travel to Egypt where they lived until the death of Herod. Do you really think that is something that Mary would just leave out because it wasn’t important to her? But talking about Jesus getting circumcised 8 days after the birth is important?

 

[jinc1019]

Luke, OTOH, was a Gentile writing to another Gentile

I have heard this argument many times before…that Luke would naturally have left information out because he was writing to Gentiles and they would not care to know about certain Jewish references to the scriptures, etc. But, why then does Luke mention that Jesus was circumcised? This is clearly something only Jews would relate to.

 

[sojo]

I will leave the apologetics to others more learned. However, I want to point out one little point… Jesus was born in a “stable” which was most like a cave or cave-like place as many/most stables of that area were designed. Thus the sometimes conflicting reports of cave vs. stable.

He was PLACED in a manger. A manger is a wood or stone trough that holds food for animals. They filled a container made for food with fresh, sweet hay and placed Jesus in that as they had no cradle. Mary did not have her baby in a manager, she was in the stable or barn for animals.

This time of year drives me crazy with folks saying Mary and Joseph were in a manger.

Now off to check out the lovely links left by more learned folk than I!

 

[jinc1019]

Great point, although it doesn’t change the fact that one story says one thing and the other says something different…but good point!

 

[jmcrae]

The point you brought up is a very important one. However, I think I did a poor job of explaining on my end. You are absolutely correct in saying that both account could be correct in areas where there is clearly room for the two accounts to blend together. Your example of the herders and the wise men both being at the birth scene is a good example of that.

Actually, the account in Matthew makes no mention of the birth scene - the only thing we know is that Jesus is not yet two years old, but He could have been as old as 23 months, three weeks, and six days - it is not necessary that He should have been a new-born baby.

However, certain portions of the account cannot be explained away using the logic you expressed above. Luke 2.21 states: “And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus…” Luke 2.22 continues, “And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jersusalem to present him to the Lord…” These two passages clearly put a time table on the event. Eight days after the shepherds arrived in Bethlehem, Jesus was circumcised. Shortly after that, he was taken to Jerusalem so that sacrifices could be made to God at the temple. This was a common custom. We know it was SHORTLY after the birth because that is what the law of Moses required.

Right.

On its own, this account is fine. But what happens when we examine Matthew? Matthew 2.13-15 says:“Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, ‘Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.’ And he rose and took the child and his mother by night, and departed to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt have I called my son.’”

Notice that it says “Rise, take the child and…flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you…” It does not say that they should first go to Jerusalem or that they should wait 8 days before leaving. It says, rise, leave now! And they do!

As I pointed out above, all we know about Jesus’ age at this time is that He is not yet two years old.

In addition, we know from historical records that Herod lived for at least a few more years after the birth of Jesus. Matthew tells us that Jesus does not return to Israel until AFTER Herod is dead. But in Luke, Jesus is taken to Jerusalem as a baby and Luke 2.39 says, “And when they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth. And the child grew and became strong…”

The word for “infant” can refer to any child under the age of 12.

It is very clear that it is immediate…there is no way Luke’s account allows for the trip to Egypt we see in Matthew.

All we know from this is that Luke doesn’t mention the trip to Egypt - which could be for any number of reasons, including that he was not told about it. Keep in mind, the Gospels are not eye-witness accounts, and are not “history” in the sense that we understand it - Luke was writing an account to show the simplicity and poverty of Christ, to endear Him to the Gentiles. Matthew, by contrast, was writing to Jewish scholars, and showing how He fulfilled the Prophecies - both accounts leave elements out that don’t suit the purpose of the specific writing. It doesn’t mean that both sets aren’t actually true.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I have never heard this way of thinking on this issue before and it is rather persuasive to a point. However, there is a HUGE hole in your logic. I agree that because I am fallible, the errors I see are possibly fallible as well. But just because I am capable of being fallible, does not mean I am ALWAYS fallible. Further, the Church, which teaches that the Bible is “entirely inspired, and therefore entirely inerrant,” is made of the same men that are just as fallible as I am. The Church councils, which chose these gospels to be in the Bible, were made of men…not of God. They certainly made the claim that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit…but, if as you pointed out, everyone is fallible, then the Church could be fallible in choosing the books they did or the writers of the gospels could be fallible in retelling their stories. Infallibility is a human trait and alters everything human hands touch.

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are Divine Revelation. God is infallible, and so is His Word in Tradition and Scripture.

The fallible persons who exercise the Magisterium are able to teach infallibly because they have the assistence of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Della]

Excellent response. Your explanation for the story is very interesting but I think one thing stands in its way. There is clearly a timetable for when all of the events occur. Luke specifically states that Jesus is circumcised 8 days later, and then is taken to Jeruslaem. If you read the response I made to the very first person who replied to my original post, you will see that the language in the gospels is immediate.

The Holy Family did not return to Galilee right after Jesus’ circumcision:

[21]And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

[22]And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.

Women underwent purification 40 or 80 days after giving birth. That is when Jesus was presented to the Lord not 8 days after his birth. So, they would have stayed in Bethlehem at least that long. I can’t see them returning to Galilee the day after. People didn’t run on the kind of schedules we moderns do. As late as the 19th century a newly married couple would go to visit relatives and sometimes stay until the birth of their second child before returning home. Luke is not saying these things happened immediately, only saying that, in the end, they returned to their home.

After all of the various tasks were performed in Jerusalem, Luke 2.39 says that “they returned into Galilee”. It is immediate…it is right after the event occurred. There is no way this can be reconciled in the way you reconciled it in your post. Luke 2.39: “And when they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city…” How could that passage mean, “They returned to Galilee AFTER going to Egypt for an extended period of time.”?

I respect your opinion greatly but I just don’t think it is possible.

You are reading immediacy into the text where none is stated. Luke either did not hear about the flight into Egypt or he felt it wasn’t necessary to put it into his account. Again, the Gospel accounts are not blow by blow, minute by minute histories of the life of Jesus. They are glimpses, snapshots only. St. John rounds out his Gospel by declaring:

John 21[25] But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Also, I do not think it is wise to say that Mary would NOT emphasize such a profound event in her life like her husband having a dream where an angel comes to him and warns him of the death of their child (who turned out to be the Messiah)…so they were instructed to travel to Egypt where they lived until the death of Herod. Do you really think that is something that Mary would just leave out because it wasn’t important to her? But talking about Jesus getting circumcised 8 days after the birth is important?

You’re not a woman, are you? Well, I am and I can tell you that the events leading up to the birth of a child are forever imprinted on a woman’s psyche. Besides, it’s probably what Luke asked her about rather than the flight into Egypt. Since he doesn’t mention it, the topic may not have come up in their conversation. And please note, I never said that the flight into Egypt wasn’t important to Mary just that the events of the night of Jesus’ birth were probably what stayed with her the most. Jesus’ safety was more Joseph’s “worry”, and Mary trusted him completely. If he said, “We have to go to Egypt to protect our child”, Mary would have said, “Let’s do it.” To her the matter was settled because that’s how women who have such utter trust in their spouses act. It’s how I react when my husband says we must do something. For her it more obedience than anxiety, you see.

I have heard this argument many times before…that Luke would naturally have left information out because he was writing to Gentiles and they would not care to know about certain Jewish references to the scriptures, etc. But, why then does Luke mention that Jesus was circumcised? This is clearly something only Jews would relate to.

Theophilus may have been a convert to Judaism or interested in Judaism, which would make sense as to why Luke would have been writing to him in the first place. So, his interest would have been quite real. Besides, obviously, Luke felt he should know about it, or he wouldn’t have put it in his account.

You are coming from a position of doubt and skepticism. Turn that on it’s head and ask, “Why wouldn’t Luke have written as he did?” instead of “Why doesn’t Luke’s account seem to line up with Matthew’s account?” I am a storyteller, a published author. I write to a certain audience in order to tell them what I want them to know according to the contents of the story and its theme(s). Luke was relating a story, a true one, but a story none the less, not being an historian. The two forms of writing are very different now, and they were then. Luke wants his reader to have confidence in Christ and so he picks and chooses what he tells him accordingly. There’s no deception here or misleading going on. It’s just two different authors trying to convey the wonderful things about Christ’s life to their readers. God’s word is not a static thing devoid of the human touch. It wasn’t dictated to them like astral writing. They wrote what they knew to those to whom they wished to inspire with the Gospel message. That has to be kept firmly in mind when reading these accounts.

 

[elvisman]

Excellent response. Your explanation for the story is very interesting but I think one thing stands in its way. There is clearly a timetable for when all of the events occur. Luke specifically states that Jesus is circumcised 8 days later, and then is taken to Jeruslaem. If you read the response I made to the very first person who replied to my original post, you will see that the language in the gospels is immediate. After all of the various tasks were performed in Jerusalem, Luke 2.39 says that “they returned into Galilee”. It is immediate…it is right after the event occurred. There is no way this can be reconciled in the way you reconciled it in your post. Luke 2.39: “And when they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city…” How could that passage mean, “They returned to Galilee AFTER going to Egypt for an extended period of time.”?

I respect your opinion greatly but I just don’t think it is possible.

I think the problem can be solved here by looking at a map of Israel during the time of Jesus.

**Mary and Joseph came to Bethlehem from Nazareth, which was about 60 odd miles. **Jerusalem is about 5 miles west of Bethlehem - so they the distance to either city from Bethlehem is equal.

If they left Bethlehem for Egypt - they would have more than likely had to go on the road through Jerusalem to get there. This would have given them ample opportunity to have Jesus circumcised.

Another thing you must remember - Herod’s jurisdiction was not limited to Bethlehem. Matt. 2:16 tells us that they searched for 2-year-old boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity in Judea.

 

[Barbkw]

Matthew was an Apostle, Luke was not.

Matthew wrote to a Jewish audience, Luke wrote to a pagan audience.

Gospel of St. Matthew:

newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

Gospel of St. Luke:

newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm

 

[zz912]

PrayHarder;7310514:

On its own, this account is fine. But what happens when we examine Matthew? Matthew 2.13-15 says:“Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, ‘Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.’ And he rose and took the child and his mother by night, and departed to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt have I called my son.’”

Remember that Herod had all male children 2 and under killed. We don’t know the exact timing of the departure to Egypt.