At first glance, the birth narratives of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke seem to contradict each other. Matthew states that Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem, then later moved to Nazareth after returning from Egypt. Luke, on the other hand, says Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth, then traveled to Bethlehem shortly before Jesus was born. However, a deeper look shows there are reasonable explanations for these differences.
One solution is that Matthew focuses on the story from Joseph’s perspective while Luke focuses on Mary’s. Joseph may have considered Bethlehem his family’s home, even though he and Mary were staying in Nazareth when she became pregnant. Luke simply says they journeyed to Bethlehem to comply with the census, without specifying where their normal residence was. So the contradiction is more apparent than real.
Another possibility is that Matthew skips over some intermediate steps in the timeline for thematic purposes. After mentioning the family’s relocation to Nazareth following the Egypt trip, Matthew summarized Jesus’ upbringing by saying He would be called a Nazarene. This identification with Nazareth was a fulfillment of prophecy (see Matthew 2:23). So Matthew’s main goal may have been showing how various events connected to prophecies, rather than providing every single biographical detail.
In addition, the traditional understanding is that Luke’s genealogy describes Mary’s family line, while Matthew’s genealogy traces Joseph’s line. This means they naturally have some differences in focus. The key points of congruence are that both genealogies identify Bethlehem as Joseph’s ancestral home, and Nazareth as the place where Mary and Joseph eventually settled to raise the Christ child.
Some also propose that Matthew portrays events from a more distant, regal perspective – highlighting magi visiting a royal child who has the “rightful” lineage for messianic kingship. Whereas Luke aims for historical precision in tracing Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, the father of all humanity. So their styles and priorities differ, but do not necessarily contradict.
In the end, alleged contradictions often arise from assuming the Gospel writers intended to create comprehensive biographies by today’s standards. But their goals were theological – selecting events that communicated deeper truths about Jesus’ identity and significance. The birth narratives overlap at key plot points while differing in rhetorical aims, style, and details.
When examining apparent biblical contradictions, it is also helpful to consider the cultural context. Precise chronologies were not always the priority or custom in ancient histories. Facts could be arranged topically rather than chronologically to underscore theological ideas. So 21st century expectations of orderly sequence may not align with 1st century approaches to historical writing.
Additionally, the Gospels were likely written decades after Jesus’ birth. So some compression or conflation of events could have occurred as oral histories were passed down. Yet the core elements converge – the prophecies, virgin conception, Bethlehem origins, etc. Minor variations in peripheral details do not necessarily equate to outright contradiction.
In summary, perceived contradictions between the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke stem chiefly from:
- Differing authorial purposes and perspectives
- Selectivity in reporting inspired by theological emphasis rather than chronological comprehensiveness
- Cultural considerations around ancient approaches to historiography
- The passage of time between events and when accounts were written down
But there are no irreconcilable differences on major historical points. Both Gospels affirm Jesus’ miraculous conception, His birthplace, the fulfillment of messianic prophecies, and other core elements consistent with His identity as the Christ. So while the birth stories have distinct styles and details, they do not contain actual contradictions when properly understood in context.
In Matthew 1:18-2:23, the account begins with Mary and Joseph already living together in Bethlehem. Jesus is born there, and after the visit of the Magi they flee to Egypt. When it is safe to return, they settle in Nazareth to avoid drawing attention in Judea. So in Matthew, Bethlehem is portrayed as the family’s original home prior to their relocation to Nazareth.
Luke 2:1-7 focuses more on describing the census that caused Mary and Joseph to journey to Bethlehem, where Jesus just happened to be born. Luke presents this trip as a temporary visit, not implying Bethlehem was their normal residence. After Jesus’ birth and His temple dedication, Luke 2:39 states they returned to Nazareth which had been their hometown.
So Matthew connects Bethlehem to Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah’s birthplace and Joseph’s Davidic ancestry. Luke simply depicts Bethlehem as the site of a providentially orchestrated birth. But there is no inherent contradiction between a prophecy-driven account stressing Bethlehem’s significance, and a historical clarification that Nazareth was their normal dwelling.
In fact, all plausible harmonizations of the Gospels acknowledge that Nazareth was where Mary and Joseph were living when she became pregnant. Both mention Nazareth as the town where Jesus grew up. The key is that Matthew’s description of Bethlehem as “their city” need not exclude Nazareth as their most recent pre-birth home.
First century readers would have understood that Matthew was not proposing a strict chronological sequence – he omits Jesus’ entire childhood after the return from Egypt. His goal was showing how Jesus recapitulated key events in Israel’s history, not constructing a precise timeline. So there is no contradiction created by him abbreviating the narrative.
Some also theorize that when Matthew says “he shall be called a Nazarene” he is referring to the city of Nazareth, not stating it was Joseph’s residence after Egypt. The name connection highlights how Jesus did not just associate with the elites of Jerusalem, but also identified with a humble Galilean town.
So the best harmonization is: Joseph’s ancestry was Bethlehem, where Mary joined his household. They later lived in Nazareth, before temporarily returning to Bethlehem for the census. After Jesus’ birth, they went back to Nazareth as Luke specifies. Matthew’s account is condensed, but not contradictory.
In Matthew, Herod tries to kill Jesus after the wise men visit him. Joseph is warned in a dream to flee to Egypt, where the family stays until after Herod’s death. They then settle in Nazareth to avoid Herod’s son. Luke has no mention of the Magi, flight to Egypt, or Herod’s murder of infants.
However, Matthew 2:16 suggests Herod killed babies 2 years old and younger, based on the Magi’s report of when the star first appeared. This would be consistent with a period of approximately 2 years passing between Luke 2 and Matthew 2, though the text does not state it explicitly.
If Luke ends with the family returning peacefully to Nazareth for Jesus’ childhood, while Matthew picks up later with Herod’s persecution and the flight to Egypt, there is no contradiction. Matthew simply focused on later events relevant to Jesus’ prophetic identity, rather than narrating a strict timeline.
Additionally, different authorial aims and audiences help explain the thematic variations. If Matthew was targeting Jewish Christians, emphasizing prophetic fulfillments was vital. For Luke’s broader Greek audience, connecting Jesus’ ancestry to Adam and humanity was more significant.
So one author concentrated on Messianic prophecies surrounding Jesus’ birth and infancy, the other on tracing Jesus’ genealogy. Their goals dictated their selectivity. But there is no inherent conflict between a prophetic biography and a genealogical history focused on different aspects of the same events.
Some wonder why Luke would not mention the Magi, flight to Egypt, and killing of infants when those seem like major incidents. However, his stated purpose in the prologue is to provide an orderly account, not mention every event. So this objection stems from unrealistic expectations of what the Gospels set out to accomplish.
Ancient historians did not feel obliged to include comprehensive details. Luke says his narrative is “orderly”, not exhaustive. The miracle of Jesus’ virgin birth was essential. Exact timing of the Magi’s visit or details of Herod’s atrocities were peripheral for Luke’s aims, so he focused on what mattered most for affirming Jesus’ identity.
In summary, the infancy narratives have slight variations in timing and details, but agree on the critical elements. The differences are partly due to:
- Matthew abbreviating the timeline for thematic purposes
- Luke filling narrative gaps, not reciting identical events
- Each author selectively reporting details relevant to their broader goals
- Standards of ancient history writing, which did not emphasize comprehensive accounts
But there are no hopelessly irreconcilable contradictions. Both present Jesus’ miraculous conception, Bethlehem birth, and fulfillment of prophecy consistently. Slight differences in peripheral details reflect the authors’ individual priorities and approaches to history writing.
Matthew traces Joseph’s lineage while Luke records Mary’s ancestry. But they both identify Joseph as legally descended from David, and agree Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the city of David. So there is no contradiction.
Matthew starts with Abraham and works forward to Joseph. Luke begins with Jesus and works backward to Adam. Matthew wanted to show how Jesus fulfilled God’s covenant with Abraham and David’s kingly lineage.
Luke highlighted Jesus’ universal significance by linking him to Adam. So the genealogies differ in direction, emphasis, and details, but not in any inherently contradictory way. They shape the narrative to fit their unique theological purposes.
The strongest clues that Luke is describing Mary’s ancestry are:
- It mentions Mary by name, unlike Matthew’s genealogy
- It includes seemingly odd insertions, like mentioning women’s names
- It goes past Abraham to Adam, stressing Jesus’ universal relevance
So Luke is likely depicting Jesus’ maternal lineage, hence the divergence from Matthew’s record of Joseph’s line. Different directions and purposes account for the variations, rather than contradictory facts.
In ancient times, genealogies could sometimes be flexible in how they traced family lines. Matthew structured it based on legal descent and royal inheritance rights. Luke’s version follows actual blood lineage, including some women along the way.
So they shaped Jesus’ ancestry according to their rhetorical goals, not modern standards of precision. The core facts about Jesus’ connection to David’s line remain consistent. He is presented as the prophetic heir to David’s throne in both accounts.
Another possibility is that one genealogy records Joseph’s natural ancestry, while the other represents his legal line of inheritance by custom. This would somewhat loosen the requirements for exact matchups generation by generation. There are reasonable explanations for the differences without requiring direct contradiction.
In the end, the genealogies reflect the same fundamental truth – Jesus is the Messiah with a rightful claim to David’s throne. Tracing His ancestry in different ways highlighted distinct theological priorities for Matthew and Luke. But those priorities fueled diversity in approach, not outright contradiction on core facts.
In summary, the infancy narrative differences reflect the Gospel writers’ distinct perspectives and purposes:
- Matthew focused more on Joseph’s experience from a Jewish messianic lens
- Luke dedicated more words to Mary’s perspective and emotions
- Matthew arranged events to highlight Old Testament prophecy parallels
- Luke structured his account chronologically and with historical detail
- Each writer selected events meaningful for their broader rhetorical aims
But these differences in emphasis or arrangement do not equate to irresolvable contradictions. Both Gospels affirm the key events like the virgin conception, Bethlehem birth, and Davidic ancestry. Minor variances in secondary details can be harmonized, and often stem from the authors’ unique approaches to recounting history.
In the end, the infancy narratives contain complementary perspectives, not contradictory accounts. Differences in detail and language reflect the Gospel writers’ distinct literary aims, priorities, and audiences – not fundamentally incompatible facts. There is flexibility in how events could be reported based on purpose and scope.
So while the birth stories have some variation, this actually strengthens their historical credibility. Perfect verbal uniformity would raise suspicion of copying. The slight differences indicate independent witnesses recounting the same amazing story from different vantage points, without contradicting each other on the central Christian truth – that Jesus is the divine Messiah and Savior of the world.