The Christmas Story(ies)
For most of my Christian life I believed the birth of Jesus to be a single, harmonious story. I've now discovered that the stories in Matthew and Luke are actually two completely different, irreconcilable narratives. I couldn't believe it myself when I first tried to harmonize them. It's not a matter of nitpicking, it's a matter of trying to shore up grave differences that strike at the very heart of their historicity.
Luke's account: the young couple of Mary and Joe travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem because Augustus ordered a census. Jesus is born in a manger. Angels appear to shepherds. After the time of purification (which was 33 days according to Leviticus 12:4) they're off to Jerusalem to present Jesus to the Lord. When they had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they head home to Nazareth.
Matthew's account: Jesus is born in Bethlehem. Magi follow a wandering star and visit Jesus at a house. Herod searches for Jesus. Jesus flees Bethlehem and escapes to Egypt. Herod gives the order to kill all boys under 2 years old in and around Bethlehem. After Herod dies, they settle in a town called Nazareth because they're afraid to go home to Bethlehem because Archelaus was now reigning in Judea.
Valiant attempts have been made to harmonize these narratives by speculating that the events in Matthew happened 2 years after the events in Luke. But Jesus being 2 years in Egypt does nothing to solve the core differences that plague these narratives. I also struggle to see how Luke could have "carefully investigated everything from the beginning" (Luke 1:3), yet fail to mention Jesus fleeing for his life to Egypt or Herod's killing of children. Add the differing genealogies and the fact that Mark and John don't even mention a birth story and one quickly realizes that a significant dose of faith is required to keep the historicity of these stories afloat. If these imaginative authors can create their own versions of Jesus’ birth, how can we trust any of their other 'historical' claims?
Luke's account: the young couple of Mary and Joe travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem because Augustus ordered a census. Jesus is born in a manger. Angels appear to shepherds. After the time of purification (which was 33 days according to Leviticus 12:4) they're off to Jerusalem to present Jesus to the Lord. When they had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they head home to Nazareth.
Matthew's account: Jesus is born in Bethlehem. Magi follow a wandering star and visit Jesus at a house. Herod searches for Jesus. Jesus flees Bethlehem and escapes to Egypt. Herod gives the order to kill all boys under 2 years old in and around Bethlehem. After Herod dies, they settle in a town called Nazareth because they're afraid to go home to Bethlehem because Archelaus was now reigning in Judea.
Valiant attempts have been made to harmonize these narratives by speculating that the events in Matthew happened 2 years after the events in Luke. But Jesus being 2 years in Egypt does nothing to solve the core differences that plague these narratives. I also struggle to see how Luke could have "carefully investigated everything from the beginning" (Luke 1:3), yet fail to mention Jesus fleeing for his life to Egypt or Herod's killing of children. Add the differing genealogies and the fact that Mark and John don't even mention a birth story and one quickly realizes that a significant dose of faith is required to keep the historicity of these stories afloat. If these imaginative authors can create their own versions of Jesus’ birth, how can we trust any of their other 'historical' claims?
posted by R.K. at 11:14 PM
0 comments
