Matthew and Luke Nativity Stories

[broodingbaird]

I tried searching for this in puritanboard so I hope I am not dragging out a dead horse to beat it. I have recently been reading the Synopsis of the Four Gospels and quite enjoying it. However, I am having a hard time piecing together Luke's and Matthew's nativity stories. I have poked around online and I get that if the events with the Magi happened about two years after the events in Luke then everything fits together quite nicely. What I don't understand is why Mary and Joseph returned to Bethlehem after all that time when Luke is clear that they were living in Nazareth. Any help with this would be much appreciated.

 

[arapahoepark]

Darrell Bock of DTS has the simplest explanation of that the Nativity of Matthew is yold from Joseph's view while Luke's from Mary. We must keep in mind the authorial intent as well as was evident in ancient biographies where they weren't exhaustive amd didn't intend too.

 

[broodingbaird]

Oh, I have no problem with authorial intent or why Luke mentions things that Matthew does not. Mine is more of a time line question. In other words, Mary Joseph and Jesus cannot both be in Nazareth after he is circumsized etc and in Bethlehem having the Magi giving him gifts. So I understand that Matthew indicates that it may be almost two years after the events in Luke that the Magi see him in Bethlehem, but I am wondering why they went back to Bethlehem after all of that time when they were living in Nazareth.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

For the curious, the effort to piece together the two birth narratives in a single timeline can be an enjoyable exercise. Especially when it is conducted from a believer's standpoint, and the starting presupposition is that "these presentations are true, and should complement one another." This is the same approach that rewards all similar puzzles, whether the creation narratives; or the reigns of the Israelite kings.

After one has pondered by himself for a while, he may appreciate reading the fruits of others' labors--who may confirm, change, or add to the first attempts; or not impress at all. All have certainly been true for me.

Here are some of my thoughts.

I suppose the two accounts are closer together than two whole years, but not both "the night of our dear Saviour's birth." Two years most likely marks something like the length of time from when the Magi saw the star at first, until they appeared in Herod's court inquiring about the newborn king. But even so, it may also include additional space in Herod's calculation, "just to be sure." Two yrs old was probably a standard weaning age, and the Magi seemed to be expecting to find an infant of some kind. The text never tells us precisely when the star first appeared relative to the child's birth. It could have been a sign first revealed some period of time in anticipation of the birth date. Not to mention there was some travel time involved, weeks, perhaps months.

Luke's account shows us the Holy Family in Bethlehem a minimum of 40 days, cf. Lk.2:22ff with Lev.12; this would be before they moved anyplace (such as Nazareth), and probably before they fled anyplace (Egypt). Luke's account then has them shift locations for Jesus' upbringing, to Nazareth, 2:39. He makes no mention of the (probably short) detour to Egypt. He next relates the story of Jesus' 12yrs old visit to Jerusalem--quite a gap--which would have been immediately prior to his formal maturity (13yrs bar mitzvah), and the feast requirements laid upon all eligible Jewish adult males, e.g. Dt.16:16.

Matthew's account begins where Luke's does, with the birth of the Son, but does not mention any of that night's visitors (shepherds). He also does not mention any of the purification requirements which Luke (surprisingly? writing for a Gentile audience) does, though Matthew is perhaps the most "Jewish" of the Gospels, constantly making reference to fulfillment of OT prophecy.

Luke mentions Mary's legal cleansing, and the firstborn's ransom (Ex.13:2). Matthew's reported visit from Gentiles (Magi) would have foisted some level of legal uncleanness on the family. This complication, possibly requiring a further visit to Jerusalem, could argue for a visit of the Magi to see them within the 40 days, nearer to the end--which would make for one less trip for ritual cleansing. The most glaring difficulty with this view is that it puts the family in Jerusalem right when Herod is toe-tapping because of the missing Magi. This is a bigger issue, once the two accounts are combined; and thus it might not be the eye-popper it seems.

But overall, I think this argues for a Magi visit after the 40 days of purification. What about Luke's return to Nazareth? Well, do we suppose the family packed their bags and left Bethlehem for Nazareth, detouring to Jerusalem for all this purification and ransom business? Or, is it as (or more) likely that they went to Jerusalem, and then stopped back to Bethlehem where they were residing temporarily, to pack up, say farewell, before heading up north? And in the meantime, there is an Unexpected Party...

Followed by a midnight flight south, rather than north...

Uncleanness from Gentile impurity? Overcome By Events...

And finally, when Joseph gets an "all clear," he starts to comes back to Bethlehem, whence he fled, and where there were people who probably wondered what happened to the family, and might still have some of their stuff. But because of nervousness over Archelaus, he avoids Bethlehem, Jerusalem and the Temple, and Judea all together; and goes home to Nazareth.

One story is told more from Joseph's or a father's perspective (but he could have been dead by the time of Jesus' ministry, since he has no more living mention in the Gospels, though Mary does). Luke is definitely told from Mary's observational standpoint, as the narrative indicates at several points. Why doesn't "Mary's" account mention the side-trip to Egypt? All I can say is, my wife has had several children, and when her focus in on the newborn, macro details of life can get awfully secondary, even forgettable. Maybe Mary barely remembered the borders of Egypt, since it wasn't likely much of a sojourn. Or maybe Luke just shortened that aspect of an already lengthy birth-narrative (ch.1 is 80vv, and ch.2 is 52vv!).

 

[Bill The Baptist]

There is nothing inherent in Herod's decree that would indicate that Jesus was two years old by the time the Maji came. Since the decree was to kill all males two and under, it is presumable that he killed infants as well, which indicates that he really had no precise idea when Jesus was born. A more natural harmony of Luke and Matthew suggests that Mary and Joseph remained in Bethlehem for forty days awaiting her time of uncleaness to end so that Jesus could be presented in the temple in nearby Jerusalem. During this time, the magi visited and the parents were subsequently made aware of Herod's decree at which time they briefly fled to Egypt and then returned to Nazareth as Luke indicates. There is simply no reason to suppose they would have stayed so long in Bethlehem and this timeline also better with when we know that Herod died, which was in 4 bc.