The disjointed nativities of Luke and Matthew

By Raul Casso

 

Almost every household, besides featuring a decorated Christmas tree, has on display a figurine of the Baby Jesus lying in a manger and surrounded by Mary, Joseph, lowly shepherds, kings, and an assortment of farm animals. This being the Christmas season, I think it appropriate to visit a few aspects of the story of the “Nativity.”

Of the four Gospels, only Matthew and Luke provide any narratives of the Nativity. John and Mark make no mention -- at all -- of the wonderful story of the birth of Jesus. Their silence is strange considering how important that event is to Christians everywhere. Stranger still are the differences between what Luke and Matthew say about the same event.

To be fair about it, both Nativity stories in Matthew and Luke share things in common. For example, both maintain that Jesus was born in Bethlehem ; both tell us of an Immaculate Conception; the names of Jesus' parents are the same; and both speak of the Holy Family's eventual move to the town of Nazareth . There are, however, troublesome differences between the two.

Consider, for example, the mess Matthew and Luke made of the genealogies they provide (Matt.1:1-16; Lk. 3:23-38). The genealogies are supposed to trace the generations from Jesus to David (of Goliath fame), but Matthew and Luke really screw things up. For starters, Luke and Matthew could not agree on who Jesus' grandfather was. Matthew says that Joseph's father was Jacob, while Luke tells us it was Heli. What a remarkable discrepancy for a people, such as the ancient Jews, who were so keen on family trees. But it only gets worse.

If one compares the genealogies in tabulation form, only two names coincide (those of Sheatiel and Zerubbabel) -- all the others are listed at different levels in the lineage, and do not coincide. Moreover, Luke lists 43 generations from David to Jesus while Matthew lists only 28 -- a difference of 15 generations. If one allows for an average of 25 or 30 years per generation, the disparity between the genealogies amounts to about four centuries. There is no reconciling a 400 year gap. Although Matthew and Luke state that they are tracing Jesus' ancestors from Joseph's side (Ma 1:16; Lk 3:23), the family trees they trace are simply not the same. One of them, if not both, is wrong.

As another example of Luke's and Matthew's incompatibility, consider their respective narratives regarding the Holy Family's return to Nazareth. According to Matthew, the Holy Family went to Nazareth directly from Egypt , where they had fled to in order to escape the wrath of Herod (Matt. 2:19-23). Their complete travel itinerary, according to Matthew, was from Bethlehem to Egypt to Nazareth (Matt. 1:24-2:1; 2:13-16; 2:21-23).

According to Luke, however, Joseph went to Jerusalem from Bethlehem for Mary's purification ceremony. From Jerusalem , they, “returned . . . to their own city Nazareth ” (Lk. 2:22, 39). Nowhere does Luke mention any sojourn into Egypt. The Holy Family's complete travel itinerary, says Luke, was from Nazareth to Bethlehem, then to Jerusalem, and then back to Nazareth (Lk. 1:26-27; 2:1-4; 2:22; 2:39).

The two travel itineraries cannot be reconciled -- even if one were to allow that Matthew and Luke contributed selectively to an overall, comprehensive travel itinerary (Nazareth-Bethlehem-Egypt-Jerusalem-Nazareth). It still doesn't work for at least a couple of reasons.

First, Matthew states explicitly that Joseph did not return to Judea from Egypt (2:19-23), but went to Nazareth in Galilee . Thus, Matthew's own testimony precludes any coupling with Luke's. Secondly, and more to the point, there is a timing problem that also precludes the marrying of Luke's and Matthew's stories.

Luke tells us that the Holy Family went back to Nazareth after participating in a purification ceremony in Jerusalem . The Law of Moses required that the purification of postpartum mothers be completed not later than 40 days after the birth of the baby (Lev. 12:1,2,4,6). Luke is careful to inform us that Mary fully complied with the Law of Moses, and the purification ceremony (2:22). Consequently, and in order to reconcile the nativity stories of Matthew and Luke, all the events they describe must fit into 40 days.

But notice how it does not work: Luke tells us that Jesus was named on the eighth day (2:21). Jesus was also circumcised on the eighth day (Lk. 2:21; Lev. 12:3). Matthew tells us about the visit of the wise men after Jesus was named (1:25-2:1). Upon the visit of the wise men, then, Mary, still in Bethlehem , had at most only 32 days left to complete the purification ceremony and otherwise comply with the law of Moses. Consequently, Herod's slaughter of the innocents, and the Holy Family's flight into and return from Egypt, had to have taken place inside of 32 days -- because we know that by the end of those 32 days, Mary was in Jerusalem, and had undergone purification.

Modern Bethlehem is approximately 300 miles from Cairo . Matthew tells us that the Holy Family stayed in Egypt “until the angel [brought] him word” and “until the death of Herod” (2: 13,15). Their period of time in Egypt would have to be subtracted from the 32 days that Mary had left. If one allows that they were in Egypt for only one week (and they must have been there longer than that), that would leave them with 25 days to make the 600-mile round trip. That's 24 miles per day for 25 days. Joseph and Mary, traveling on their little donkey, or maybe on a camel, would have put in a forced march that would have made Gen. Patton proud!

When thus compared, it becomes clear that Matthew and Luke were not telling of different aspects of the same historical event to be assembled together for a complete picture. Rather, in composing their respective gospels, they were relying on separate, mutually contradictory, traditions on the birth of Jesus. Whether any of them actually occurred is doubtful as reliance on one brings into question the veracity of the other.