By Tomas de los Santos

Most of us are familiar with the nativity scene of Christ featured along with Christmas trees in many homes during Christmastime. But how many of us have actually looked at the birth narratives in the Bible and compared them to see what they actually say? When we actually have a closer look at the story as recorded in the Bible, a number of surprises present themselves.
To begin with, the birth of Christ is mentioned only in the books of Matthew and Luke. Strangely, John and Mark say nothing about the birth of Christ and the miraculous circumstances surrounding the event. The rest of the New Testament, from the book of Acts to Revelation, is equally silent as to the circumstances surrounding the birth of our Lord. To top it all off, however, the narratives of Matthew and Luke are so different from each other that it is as though they were talking about two different stories.
While I urge you to read and compare the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, the following is a brief summary of the stories they tell:
Matthew: Mary was found to be pregnant. In a dream, an angel appeared to Joseph to explain Mary's pregnancy to him, and to inform him as to whom Jesus was to become. Jesus was then born in Bethlehem. King Herod, troubled upon hearing of wise men asking for the King of the Jews, dispatched the wise men to search for Jesus, and ordered them to report back. Led by a star, the wise men found the baby Jesus with Mary in a house. They worshiped Jesus, and presented him with treasures. Warned by angels of Herod's impending wrath, the wise men then fled to their own country, while Joseph, also warned, fled to Egypt with Jesus and Mary. Herod, angered by the wise men's failure to obey him and the frustration of his plan to kill Jesus, orders the massacre of all the children of Bethlehem two years old and under. Herod died sometime after the slaughter, allowing Joseph and his family to finally leave Egypt. Eventually, and while Archelaus became ruler of Judea, the Holy Family went to Nazareth.
Luke: The Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary in Nazareth, and told her of her impending pregnancy courtesy of the Holy Ghost. Thereafter, Caesar decreed that a new tax, or a census, be imposed requiring everyone to return to "their own city." Thus Joseph and the now pregnant Mary were compelled to travel to Bethlehem where Jesus was born in a manger, and then visited by shepherds. Eight days after the birth of Jesus, the Holy family went to Jerusalem where Jesus was circumcised, and where they participated in several temple rituals. Thereafter, they returned to Nazareth.
Except for the selection of Bethlehem as the birth place and Nazareth as a place of destination, there are no similarities between the two stories. One of the most glaring dissimilarities is that regarding the trip to Egypt. Matthew tells us that because of Herod's threats, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt where they stay until Herod dies. Notice how Luke makes no mention of any trip to Egypt. Instead, Luke has Joseph, Mary, and Jesus go to Jerusalem to participate in temple rituals, which include Jesus' circumcision. It should be obvious that Luke's account cannot be reconciled with that of Matthew. Luke has no gaps in his narrative that would allow for a flight to Egypt, much less an extended stay in that country, as Matthew claims.
In addition to this serious discrepancy, both narratives include details that the other omits. In Matthew, an angel appears to Joseph several times. In Luke, Joseph's angel is not mentioned, although heavenly visitors appear to Mary. Matthew has Jesus visited by wise men, or astrologers, from the east. These wise men are not mentioned by Luke; instead, he has shepherds visiting the newborn Christ. Moreover, Matthew has Jesus in a house, while Luke has Him in a manger.
Notice how the discrepancies become more pronounced when we try to locate the approximate year of the event. Matthew has Jesus born while Herod is still king. Matthew goes on to record Herod's death, and the beginning of the reign of Herod's son, Archelaus. Secular historians agree with this sequence. The Jewish historian Josephus recorded that Herod died shortly after an eclipse, and also states that Archelaus became ruler in his father's place. Astronomers believe that an eclipse occurred in that part of the world around 4 BCE. According to Matthew, then, Jesus was born sometime before 4 BCE.
Luke, however, places the birth of Jesus during the tax conducted by Caesar Augustus while Cyrenius was governor of Syria. According to Josephus, Cyrenius became governor of Syria after Archelaus was banished during the tenth year of his reign. Luke, then, places the birth of Christ at around 6 CE, or at least a full decade after the date suggested by Matthew.
Lastly, there is the problem of the slaughter of the children that Matthew talks about. Consider how shocking such an event would have been, even in those times. Nevertheless, not only does Luke fail to record the event, but Josephus, on the secular side, makes no mention of it, and this though Josephus devoted several chapters to the history of King Herod, recording many of ugly deeds.
What can we conclude from this? Luke and Matthew were recording two separate and contradictory oral traditions that were popular in their respective parts of the world, and to their respective readership. The fact that we cannot reconcile the two stories means that we cannot be sure that either of the stories is true. We are left with three alternatives: (1) one of the stories is pure fiction and the other is factually accurate; (2) both stories are incorrect about an actual event; or, (3) both stories are fictional and were made-up about a non-existent event. You choose.