Do the narratives of Jesus' birth contradict each other?

I proceed to consider the passage on p. 117 relative to the birth and infancy of the Lord. It is as follows: — "The two accounts of Matthew and Luke are contradictory. The second admits that Nazareth was the abode of Joseph and Mary, and accounts for the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem by the supposed necessity of Joseph's going there to be taxed, as being of the family of David; while the first assumes that Bethlehem was the abode of the parents, and says that they only went to Nazareth some years later from fear of Archelaus, who had succeeded to his father Herod. Matthew describes the Massacre of the Innocents at Bethlehem, and says that Jesus escaped it by flying into Egypt, while Luke omits all mention of the massacre, the miraculous star, and the wise men of the East, and says that the parents took the babe straight to Jerusalem." I quote the passage in full so that you may have it before you, should you not have a copy of the book at hand.

Let us look first at chapter 2 of Luke's Gospel. Here we read (Luke 2:4-5) that, in consequence of the decree of Augustus, Joseph and Mary went up from Nazareth to Bethlehem to be taxed (or registered). While they were there, the Child was born, and because there was no room in the inn, was wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger, both these circumstances indicating a stable as the place where the shepherds found "Mary and Joseph and the babe" (verse 16). In the twenty-second and following verses we find that when the days of Mary's purification were accomplished, the parents took the Child to Jerusalem. This must have been about a month after the Child's birth (see Leviticus 12:4). The 39th verse states that "when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."

Turning to Matthew, we find a marked contrast in the whole structure, but I hope to show that there is no "contradiction." Minute details as to the circumstances surrounding the birth are not given, because Matthew's purpose is to present Christ as the King of the Jews — the Messiah. Whereas Luke presents Him in the wider aspect of the Son of Man, and we are given the intensely interesting human details so perfect in their place. They would be out of place in Matthew.

167 Now in answering an alleged contradiction, to shew that the facts can be reconciled, is a complete answer. Now both the narratives in this way may be true. Even supposing Luke is speaking of an immediate departure, it is a very probable thing that, being enregistered, and having performed their duty in the temple, they should go home; while the occurrence of such circumstances as accompanied the birth of Jesus would almost naturally bring them back to David's city, with the Jewish feelings they had; and these poor people had nothing to connect them with Nazareth more than another place. They were in that miserable place perhaps from poverty. It was, not, at any rate, a place they had any tie to. If their son was the divinely-sent Heir to David of Bethlehem, whither would such a thought lead them? The circumstantial probabilities connected with the slaying of the infants tend to shew some time had elapsed. The birth of the babe mentioned in Matthew connects itself with the regal title associated with that place in every Jew's mind, and not with the date of the event. The important matter was that He was born there; for so not only prejudice but prophecy claimed; and it is in this connection it is used in Matthew. But the fact is, the "when" in English (which to the simple English reader is a natural note of time) has nothing to answer to it in the Greek, which is merely "Now Jesus having been born in Bethlehem of Judea" Matt. 2:1 - a fact of all importance to His history, and to this passage in particular. There is no note of time more particular than "In the days of Herod the king" — a fact also indirectly material to His history, and which tends to set aside the idea of a more accurate note of time being given in the same passage, and to give a general character to the statement. Hence nothing is more easy than the connection of the facts, while the objection falls to the ground.

Now, as to the passages in question. There is no proof whatever that it was at the time of His birth that Jesus was found of the magi. He had been born at Bethlehem. It is evident that at the time of His birth the star appeared, for Herod had enquired of the wise men the time. The star had disappeared (it is generally supposed it led them - this is a mistake, for they rejoiced greatly when they saw it again). What time elapsed before they set out, no one knows. Time was spent, clearly, in their journey from the East; and Herod, who had exactly enquired of them, slays all "from two years old and under." No doubt he would make assurance doubly sure - still "all from two years old and under." If there was only a month run out, or not, even that seems out of measure: so that nothing would show that they were not returned to Bethlehem at some feast. The only argument alleged is the enquiry where He should be born, but this merely is the natural enquiry on having seen His nascent star, and they would seek Him at His own city; so that He might have been in Galilee and come back. And note here, I have nothing to do with proving this to be true, but merely that it is possible, because, if it is possible, there is no contradiction; if any supposition renders possible that the two accounts subsist, there is evidently no contradiction, for they may in that case have both been true. It is important to remember this. The infidel argument is not that it was not so, but that it could not be so. Now if I prove it could, the argument of the infidel is good for nothing. Now it is clear that Jesus could have gone into Galilee and come back. The "When Jesus was born," in our English translation, is nothing - it is literally, "Jesus having been born."

Matthew makes Joseph take the young child and His mother into Egypt. Luke makes them return to Nazareth in Galilee, when they had presented Him in the Temple. Note, there is nothing to prove the same time. The magi may have come later as is probable, for Herod killed from two years and under, according to the time he had diligently (accurately) enquired - this, or Luke's usual passing over events and time.

115 As to Matthew's and Luke's account of the birth of the Lord - first, in the brief accounts given, we find nothing but what bears on particular points which the Holy Ghost had in view. There is nothing more opposite to the intention of the Gospels than what is called a harmony. They treat different characters of Christ, and what bears on that is given, and all give a very small part indeed of His history. This produces difficulties which are attached to our ignorance of a multitude of connecting links. Often facts having the same moral bearing are put together, especially in Luke, with entire indifference as to date. The moral point is all that is sought. That the event happened before or after, is all one, nay, the historical order is neglected to maintain the moral, or distant events linked together without notice of interval, if bearing morally one on another. This is the general method of Luke, and is invaluable for our instruction. In reading the account in Luke's Gospel of the interval between the ascension and the resurrection, an unbeliever would at once take it for continuing, and that the leading out to Bethany was the day of His resurrection, and the ignorance of Luke, and the absence of inspiration proved by the contradiction of other Gospels. Now, in this case, we have the proof of the contrary at hand. Luke knew perfectly, if we look at him as a human writer, that there was an interval, and so true is this that he is the only one who gives the fact that forty days elapsed before the Saviour left the earth. But the simple truth is, this was not the Spirit's object in the Gospel - it was in the Acts. But we learn here that such a bringing of events together proves nothing of what it is alleged to prove.

Nothing is said in Luke of the wise men, the Magi, coming to see Him in "the house" (Mt.2:11) not in the manger. Joseph and Mary must have taken Him back to Bethlehem after going first to Nazareth since His age at the time of the wise men's visit was well over a year, for Herod at this later date had all the children under two years killed in an effort to do away with the Messiah (Mt.2:16). At that time Joseph and Mary went to Egypt (Mt.2:13-14), then later, after the death of Herod, returned to Nazareth (Mt.2:19-23). The intervening time between the Lord's being taken to Egypt and returning later to Nazareth is not referred to at all in Luke, where nothing of the Lord's history is seen again until He was twelve years of age.

The first question would be to ascertain the time when these wise men came to Jerusalem. It is generally believed that it was immediately after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. The old masters have taken most of the subjects for their paintings from biblical history, but many of these productions, if not all, are unscriptural and misleading. Thus the birth of the Saviour has been put on canvas, so familiar to our readers, a stable, a manger, Mary and Joseph, domestic animals, a star shining over the building, shepherds with their staffs on the one hand and on the other three gaudily attired persons on their knees, glittering crowns on their heads, and in the extended hands the gift upon which the eyes of the babe rest. Such a picture of course is incorrect. The authorized version, too, has helped such a wrong conception along by having it translated, "But when Jesus was born." The correct reading is, But Jesus having been born, that is some time after and not immediately after. Other evidences in the chapter show that the child must have been about a year old when the visit of the wise men occurred. They had seen His star, announcing to them in their far away homes that the expected king had been born. They had to travel over a large territory, and the journey must have taken many months, and then there is nothing to show that they started at once. In the eleventh verse we read, "And when they had come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary His mother, and they fell down and worshipped Him." In Luke it says, "And she brought forth her first born Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn." In Matthew it is a house where the child is found, in Luke there was no room in the inn. Perhaps the most important evidence is in the sixteenth verse. Herod had privately called the wise men and inquired of them exactly the time that the star appeared. Their answer is not given, but from the sixteenth verse we may conclude that Herod had received a very definite answer by which he knew that the child could not be over two years old.

It is singular that the Revisers have left Matt. 2:1 as it stands in the Authorised Version, when a slight and lawful change of rendering would guard the reader from a really groundless misapprehension of the history. As it stands one might infer, with superficial poets and painters, according to tradition, that the visit of the magi followed close upon the Messiah's birth. And this error has been greedily misused by sceptics. But a comparison of Luke 2 shows that it was not so; confirmed by the accurate ascertainment of the time by Herod, and his consequent slaughter of the male babes at Bethlehem from two years old and under. Room must be left for several months', if not a year's, interval. As we know, the parents came up to Jerusalem for the passover every year; and is anything more intelligible than the interest which would draw to Bethlehem those who knew that the Child was the promised son and heir of David's throne? Then, on a subsequent occasion, came the magi who had seen the star in the east, and gone to Jerusalem in consequence. They had learnt, through Herod, from the scribes that Bethlehem was the predicted spot; and the star, to their joy, re-appears to guide them, till it stood over the place where the Child was. The aorist participle leaves the sense quite open, where "Now when," etc., limits it in this case unduly. Translate, therefore, "Now Jesus having been born," or "Now after Jesus was born," etc.

The very first incident in the chapter illustrates it. Jesus was born. We do not meet with the same interesting facts, which are given us in Luke, of the very early days of our Lord's infancy: all are passed by, save that we have Christ presented as born in Bethlehem of Judea, the worship of the Magi from the east, and the flight into Egypt. The first fact that the Holy Ghost gives us here is the affecting one that there was no heart for the Messiah in Israel. And this was proved by the most significant circumstances. "Jesus having been born, in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is He that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the east, and are come to worship (or do homage to) Him." We are not told how soon this was after His birth. No doubt a considerable time had elapsed. People are often deceived as to this in looking at the scene through the notions of their infancy. We have all seen the pictures of the Babe in the manger, and "the three kings" coming in to worship Him. But the truth is, that the Lord was not just born, as such associations would convey, when the Magi arrived. For His earliest condition in this world we must consult, not Matthew, but Luke.

Some might, it is true, gather a wrong impression from the Authorized Version of verse 1: "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king." This does not intimate that the visit followed immediately upon our Saviour's birth, but leaves room for a time more or less considerable afterwards. It simply means, that after He was born these easterns came: many months, or upwards of a year, might have intervened. What confirms this is that the wise men had first seen the star in the east, and most probably at the time of our Lord's birth. After seeing the star, they had of course many a preparation to make before they could set out, and then a long way to travel; and travelling in those days was a hard and tedious matter in the eastern parts of the world. Even when they arrive in Judea, they go up first to Jerusalem to enquire there. All this supposes necessarily the lapse of no little time. Their questions are answered by the scribes. Herod, hearing of it, is troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. He gathers together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, and demands of them where Christ should be born. They tell him in Bethlehem of Judea, upon which he calls the wisemen and sends them there. All this took place before the scene of their worship.

To begin with, it is to be remarked that the expression "when Jesus was born" (in chap. 2. I) does not strictly answer to the force of the original, which would be more correctly rendered "Jesus having been, born," and you will see it is simply added "in the days of Herod the king." The time at which the wise men's visit took place is thus not given in verse 1. This we must gather from the remainder of the chapter.

As compared with Matthew — the only other Gospel which gives at all the circumstances of His birth or infancy — the account of the Lord's coming into the world is clearly in keeping with the Gospel of the Manhood. There is no incident that the two have in common; and each maintains its own character with the most perfect consistency. In the one the Gentile magi may come to do homage to a King of the Jews; in the other, to shepherds in the field heaven opens to announce a Saviour. The testimony of Simeon and Anna is also to a Saviour and salvation. His circumcision, and the offerings at His presentation to the Lord, alike show Him to us in the "likeness of sinful flesh"; while His growth and development testify to the verity of His Manhood. These things are in full accord with the truth presented in Luke, — each one being necessary to it.

How thorough is the humiliation into which He is come is shown by the circumstances of His birth. Caesar is lord of the world, and orders it as he will, for his own purposes. How different a world from that which He had made at the beginning; yet He is in it as under Caesar's rule, Joseph and Mary being brought out of Nazareth to Bethlehem to be enrolled as of David's line. Spite of all this, the power of the world is unconsciously working to fulfil a prophecy concerning One it knows not; and this being accomplished, the design drops through as if it had never been: "the census itself first took place when Cyrenius (or Quirinus) was governor of Syria" — some years afterward.