Comparing Luke and Matthew Nativity Peer Reviewed Articles

---

James Bejon writes: Every bit Christians, most of united states are familiar with harmonised versions of the NT's nascence narratives. We meet them acted out each year in Nativity plays (if nosotros subject ourselves to such things). Considered in isolation, however, the nativity narratives are less familiar, and even slightly awkward. They gloss over major events. Or, to put the point another fashion, they don't mention what we might (reasonably?) expect them to mention. Consequently, most disquisitional commentators dismiss (elements of) them as ahistorical. If Joseph had really fled to Arab republic of egypt to avert a massacre, we're told, Matthew wouldn't be the only person to mention it. And if Joseph had really concluded up in Bethlehem as a result of an empire-wide demography, Luke wouldn't exist the only person to mention it. And so it goes on.

Simply how tin can such commentators be so certain they know what Matthew and Luke—individuals about whom they can tell u.s.a. very picayune—would accept wanted to include in their narratives? If their narratives aren't inherently incompatible (as I've sought to show hither), and if we can provide plausible reasons why Matthew and Luke might not take wanted to mention the item incidents they refuse to mention, then why should we recollect their narratives are ahistorical, fifty-fifty in part?

Here, I want to consider whether such reasons can exist provided. The hypothesis I'll accelerate is as follows. Jesus was born in tumultuous times. The events of his nascence included a demography, a massacre, a flying to Arab republic of egypt, and many other things likewise, and Matthew and Luke took these events to be significant—i.e., to frame Jesus every bit the fulfilment of Biblical history—simply each author focused on different aspects of them. For Matthew, Jesus is a Moses-like deliverer, who presents an immediate threat to the world's Herods. As far as Matthew is concerned, then, Jesus' presentation at the Temple and babyhood in Nazareth are irrelevant, and to include them would be a distraction. Meanwhile, for Luke, Jesus is a more subversive and Samuel-like figure, who grows up and in around the Temple. From Luke's perspective, and so, Jesus' stay in Bethlehem (after his presentation at the Temple) and flying to Egypt are irrelevant, while his presentation at the Temple and (undramatic) babyhood are highly relevant.

That Matthew and Luke don't write the way we might expect is, therefore, quite truthful, but it's evidence not of their ahistoricity, merely of the purpose and sophistication of their narratives (not to mention the climactic nature of their Messiah'due south entrance into globe history). If, by today's standards, that makes elements of their narratives ahistorical, then it makes elements of their narratives ahistorical. Simply trustworthiness and conformity to (mod-24-hour interval) expectations are two different things. Ultimately, if we desire to appoint with Matthew and Luke in a fruitful way, we need to engage with them on their ain terms rather than on the footing of our expectations.

What are the problems?

The best known critical commentary on the NT's birth narratives is Raymond Brownish's The Nativity of the Messiah. It was written over the course of over fifteen years, consists of some 750 pages, and is representative of a much wider torso of scholarship. At the conclusion of the book's introduction, Brownish dismisses many elements of the birth narratives equally ahistorical. If the census had actually taken place, he says, Matthew would take mentioned it too as Luke. And, if the flight to Egypt had really taken place, Luke would take mentioned information technology also as Matthew. And even if the massacre did have identify and Luke didn't mention information technology, it would be reflected elsewhere in the NT. And then it goes on. Beneath, we'll consider the specific details of Matthew and Luke's narratives and run into if we concord with Brown'south assessment of them. (Annotation: Brown also identifies other issues with the nascence narratives, but for now nosotros'll restrict our discussion to the result of their internal plausibility.

Equally I've tried to show elsewhere, Matthew and Luke'southward narratives are predicated on a common core of events. Both narratives open with a description of a couple who are engaged to exist married, namely Mary and Joseph. Both place Joseph equally a man of Davidic descent. Both have Mary conceive by the agency of the Holy Spirit. And both take Jesus built-in in Bethlehem and afterward raised in Nazareth.

Withal, Matthew and Luke's narratives differ in some of import respects. Whereas Matthew tells the states about Herod, the wise men, the massacre at Bethlehem, and the flying to Egypt, Luke tells us about a different set of events altogether—events which involve Caesar, the shepherds, Jesus' presentation at the Temple, and Jesus' childhood in Nazareth. They line upwards in this way:

Matthew and Luke'due south narratives thus frame Jesus' early on years against quite different backdrops, which has led many commentators to question the historicity of Matthew and Luke's narratives. If Luke was a competent historian, wouldn't he take been aware of the massacre of Bethlehem's infants? And, if he was enlightened of it, why didn't he mention information technology? Why does Luke instead take the family unit head back to Nazareth, with no mention of Joseph's flight to Arab republic of egypt? And why, if Luke's narrative is reliable, doesn't Matthew mention Caesar's prescript and/or the shepherds? Is it credible to think Matthew was aware of the events recorded in Luke's narrative and however declined to mention them (and vice-versa in Luke's case)?

That all depends on how and why we think the Gospels were equanimous. If we think Matthew's aim was to find out as much data every bit he could about Jesus and so write it all downwards in a gospel, Matthew's failure to mention certain events does indeed seem problematic (and also in Luke's case). Very few people, however, recall that's what the gospel-writers did, and for good reason. Consider, for example, Matthew and Luke's genealogies. Matthew and Luke were familiar with the OT. Matthew therefore had names available to him which he chose not to include in his genealogy, and Luke had a whole ancestral line (from Shealtiel to David) available to him which he chose not to include in his genealogy (compare ane Chron iii). More radically, consider the Gospel of John. Do we call up John was unaware of the things he didn't mention in his gospel (east.g., Jesus' temptations, parables, exorcisms, transfiguration, and institution of the Lord'south supper)?

Like all authors, Matthew and Luke wrote with specific purposes in mind. Each man wanted to tell Jesus' story in his own way—to highlight detail themes of Jesus' ministry, to emphasise particular parallels between Jesus' ministry and OT history, and so on. And if nosotros pay attending to how they did and then, it will help u.s.a. brand sense of their selection of material.

Matthew

So, what are the specific purposes of Matthew and Luke'south birth narratives? We'll start with Matthew's. Its distinctives can exist summarised every bit follows.

Spelt out more fully: while Luke tells us about Caesar and the census, Matthew tells us about Herod and the massacre of the infants. While Luke tells us about the shepherds, Matthew tells us about the (star-struck) wise men and their gifts. And, while Luke has Jesus at the Temple and/or Nazareth, Matthew has Jesus' family flee to Egypt.

At present, why has Matthew chosen to tell u.s. about these events in particular (rather than those described past Luke)? What's their mutual theme/connexion? The reply, I suggest, is that they're all distinctly exodus-shaped events, which portray Jesus' nativity as a sign of an exodus to come.

Consider some of the relevant parallels. Both stories open with Israel ruled by a foreign overlord (once an Egyptian, in the other an Edomite). Both revolve around the birth of a child who's destined to deliver his people. In both cases, the overlord in question views the child as a threat (cp. Exod. 1.nine–10). Both stories have the overlord massacre State of israel's infants in an attempt to secure his position. In both stories, God's deliverer flees to a foreign land, where he holes out until his enemies accept passed abroad (cp. Matt. two.20 w. Exod. four.nineteen). In both stories, God outwits (ἐμπαίζω) his enemies (cp. Matt. ii.16 w. Exod. x.two). And, in both stories, God's people are made rich past the Gentiles (cp. Egypt's wealth westward. the wise men's gifts).

These parallels are no coincidence. Indeed, in Matt. 2.15, Matthew explains the significance of Joseph's sojourn in Egypt past the citation of Hosea 11.ane: 'Out of Egypt I chosen my son'. Just as God began a redemptive piece of work in Moses' twenty-four hours when he called Israel along from Arab republic of egypt, so in Joseph'south day God will over again telephone call his Son along from Arab republic of egypt and begin an even greater redemptive piece of work.

Matthew's allusions to the exodus, however, aren't simply a vague anticipation of redemption. They outline a deliberately inverted exodus story. Everything is back to front. The murderous male monarch isn't an Egyptian Pharaoh, only a 'king of the Jews'. The land in which God's son is imperilled isn't Egypt, but Israel. And the country where the son is accustomed isn't Israel, but Arab republic of egypt. Why? Because Jesus' exodus won't simply be a rerun of the original; it will exist a different kind of exodus. The line of division betwixt God's people and God'south enemies won't be drawn on the footing of nationality (Israel vs. Egypt: Matt. 8.11–12, 10.34–39), but on the basis of obedience (12.46–50). And, on the dark of the Passover to come, God'southward firstborn Son won't escape death.

The relevance of Matthew's genealogy

That Matthew's allusions to the exodus are intentional is confirmed by their echoes in Matthew'southward genealogy. Consider, for a start, the notion of a foreign ruler who massacres a host of infants in Israel. Matthew's genealogy also draws our attention to such a ruler, which it does by means of a conspicuous lacuna in its male monarch listing.

Suppose I tell you I spent last Christmas with my mum, my brothers, and my sisters. While my statement is ostensibly about my mum, brothers, and sisters, it draws most attention (somewhat paradoxically) to my dad, since information technology makes y'all wonder why I haven't mentioned him.

Matthew's genealogy works in a similar way. Afterwards Jehoram-aka-Joram, the next king mentioned in Matthew's genealogy is Jehoram's great-neat-grandson (Azariah-aka-Uzziah). Matthew thus fails to mention three Judahite kings: Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah.

Why does Matthew omit these iii kings? Part of the reply, I advise, is to draw our attending to a notable sequence of events which transpired in their days. The accession of Ahaziah was a notable outcome in and of itself, since Ahaziah was the son of Jehoram and Athaliah, and Athaliah was a daughter of the recently-cursed Ahab (2 Kgs. 8.xvi–xviii, 25–26). Ahaziah thus represented an unwelcome injection of foreign blood (and behaviour) into David's line (cp. 2 Chr. 21.13 west. the refs. to Ahab's influence in 22.ane–half dozen). And, a year later, an even more notable event took place: Ahaziah died without any sons old plenty to succeed him, at which point Athaliah sought to slay all the potential heirs to the throne and claim information technology for herself.

Mercifully, notwithstanding, Ahaziah's sister managed to spare Ahaziah's youngest son, Joash, and hide him away (protected by a Gentile guard) until he was sometime enough to reign (cp. two Chr. 22–23).

Consider, then, the situation. We accept a foreign ruler in charge of Israel (i.e., an illegitimate 'king of the Jews'), a newborn child who'south a threat to the ruler'southward authority, an attempt to extinguish the 'line of promise', and a member of royal family who'south subconscious the child abroad in a foreign environment. Ring whatever bells? It should practise. It's another exodus event.

Matthew'south king list thus fulfils at to the lowest degree two important functions. First, it underscores the unity of theme of Matthew's narrative. And, second, information technology underscores the threat presented by Jesus. Jesus is a legitimate heir to the throne of David, born in the correct place at the correct fourth dimension (Matt. 2.iii–6), which is why Herod has to eliminate him.

The riches of the Gentiles

A last exodus-like characteristic of Matthew'south genealogy tin can be identified in its allusions to the riches of the Gentiles. Its fourteen-fold periodicity highlights four individuals—Abraham, David, Jechoniah, and Jesus—all of whom receive considerable aid and riches from Gentile rulers/nations. Abraham emerges from Egypt not only unscathed, but enriched by the land's silver and gold (Gen. 12.10–13.ii). David finds (temporary) refuge among the Philistines and is given silverish and gold by Gentile kings (ii Sam. 8.x) (as is his son, Solomon). Jechoniah is shown special favour past the king of Babylon (2 Kgs. 25.27–thirty), as is his son (Zerubbabel), who emerges from Babylon with silver and gilt (Ezra one–two). And, as we've seen, Jesus himself is preserved in a Gentile land and fabricated rich by gifts from foreign lands (compare Exod. 3.22, xi.2, 12.35).

Reflections on Matthew's narrative

In sum, and then, Matthew'south birth narrative is a careful and sophisticated limerick, tied together by a articulate unity of theme. True, that doesn't make Matthew's narrative historical, merely it does aid to explain Matthew's selection of material. In the view of many commentators, Matthew and Luke's nativity narratives tin't both be historically accurate because Matthew shows no awareness of Luke's census or Joseph's journey to Bethlehem. How, so, do such commentators call up Matthew's narrative should have been written? Well, suppose we rewrite information technology similar this:

And so all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the displacement to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.

Now, the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way: when his mother Mary had been matrimonial to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And, at about that time, a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered, which was the beginning registration when Quirinius was governor of Syrian arab republic. And all went to exist registered, each to his ain town…

Matthew'due south narrative is now more than consequent with Luke'southward, right? By the aforementioned token, however, information technology's far less lucid. Every bit we've seen, Matthew'southward genealogy is crafted in such a way as to anticipate Herod's hostility, and Matthew'due south commendation of Hosea explicitly frames Herod and Jesus' see in light of the exodus. Caesar's interest in the thing is, therefore, irrelevant to Matthew. Caesar didn't occupy the throne of David, nor did he encounter Jesus as a threat, nor did his decree cause Jesus to flee to a foreign land. (Indeed, different Herod's, Caesar'southward decree is conducive to the fulfilment of God'southward purposes.) Consequently, a description of Caesar's involvement in Jesus' birth would merely dilute and misfile Matthew's narrative. And, as we'll now see, the same is true of Luke'southward (mutatis mutandis).

Luke: The Temple rather than the palace

Matthew and Luke'south nativity narratives portray Jesus in quite different means. For Matthew, Jesus is a Davidic king, who presents a threat to Israel'southward rulers from the moment of his nascency. For Luke, however, Jesus is man of more apprehensive origins. Jesus is no threat to Caesar (as yet) and is more than closely associated with the Temple and priesthood than with the throne.

Spelt out more fully:

• Whereas Matthew's Gospel opens with an proclamation of Jesus' condition as the long-awaited son of David (1.1), Luke's opens with a story nearly the struggles of a piddling-known priestly couple and their duties at the Temple.
• Whereas Matthew's genealogy is headed upwardly by two of the all-time known figures in Jewish history (Abraham and David) (1.1), Luke's begins in obscurity and works its way upwards to David and Abraham—a direction of travel elsewhere associated with priestly genealogies (cp. i Chr. vi.31–48 west. its context).
• Whereas Matthew's narrative begins in Bethlehem, Luke'due south begins in the Judean hill-country and afterwards relocates to Nazareth—a town of trivial significance in OT history (John 1.46).
• Whereas Matthew'southward Messiah is born male monarch of the Jews (Matt. ii.2), Luke'southward begins his ministry at the age of thirty (as all priests do).
• Whereas Matthew'southward birth narrative culminates in the annunciation 'The kingdom of sky is at hand!' (Matt. three.ane–2), Luke'south culminates in a description of Jesus' worship at the Temple (and submission to his parents).
• And, whereas Matthew has Jesus offered 'the kingdoms of the world' at the conclusion of his temptations, Luke has Jesus brought to the Temple, which is where his Gospel ultimately winds up.

Matthew and Luke thus present Jesus in dissimilar ways, though they practise and so for similar reasons. Just as the distinctives of Matthew'due south narrative are intended to frame it against a detail OT backdrop (the exodus), then too are those of Luke's narrative.

Consider the picture Luke paints for us. Nosotros have a priestly couple who are unable to have children, a misunderstood woman whose prayer is finally answered, the nativity of a child, a woman who responds in songs of joy, a couple who go up to the business firm of God each year to worship, and a young boy left at the Temple, where he astounds his seniors with his wisdom, all fix against the backdrop of the tenure of two ungodly priests (Annas and Caiaphas) (3.two).

Why has Luke called to describe these states of affairs in detail? Are they tied together by a common theme? They are indeed. They're a recapitulation of a previous birth narrative in the Biblical narrative, namely Samuel's (1 Sam. 1–ii). For Luke, Jesus' birth doesn't betoken the inflow of a Moses-like leader, just of a Samuel-like servant—a boy who may not be an immediate threat to men similar Herod, just who will ultimately plough the globe upside downwardly by means of his life and doctrine.

Like Samuel, Jesus will be left at the Temple. From a tender age, his words will astound the wise, and he will grow in favour with God and human. Still, as time goes on, Jesus' words will become more contentious (iv.22–30). Although they will convert the hearts of some in State of israel, they volition harden the hearts of others (most notably Jerusalem'south authorities), until, in the end, they spell out the Temple'south judgment. 'Not ane rock will be left on superlative of some other! Jerusalem volition fall, the heavens will be shaken, and the Son of Man will come in ability and smashing celebrity!' (Luke 21). Like a depth charge, Jesus' initial arrival in State of israel will seem inconsequential, yet it volition ultimately bring Jerusalem to its knees.

Luke: Poverty rather than riches

As important to note is Luke'due south association of Jesus with the poor. While Matthew has Joseph reside in a house, Luke has him order in a guestroom. While Matthew has Jesus visited by wise men, Luke has him visited by (mere) shepherds. And, while Matthew has Jesus given golden and precious spices, Luke has him taken to the Temple forth with a poor man's sacrifice (cp. Lev. 12.eight).

These details are meaning. As far as Luke is concerned, the Gospel is fundamentally for the poor and downtrodden (3.5–6, 4.18, 7.22, fourteen.eleven, etc.). Jesus has come to inaugurate a Jubilee—a 'year of favour', a time when those who have lost their inheritance are given new hope (4.xviii–nineteen)—, which is precisely why Luke mentions Caesar'southward Jubilee-like prescript, with each Israelite returned to his hometown.

Luke's rationale

As we've noted, many commentators are unsatisfied with Luke's narrative. They look information technology to show a greater awareness of the events described in Matthew'southward. Suppose, then, we attempt to include the flying to Egypt in Luke's narrative (just as we previously tried to include the census in Matthew's). As it stands, the text of Luke 2.39 reads as follows: 'When Mary and Joseph had washed what was required past the Police force of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to Nazareth'. Suppose we attempt to incorporate the flight to Egypt in this fashion:

When Mary and Joseph had washed what was required by the Law of the Lord, they went to Egypt for a number of years and later returned to Galilee, to Nazareth…

Luke's narrative now shows an sensation of its analogue in Matthew. By the same token, however, it's a less lucid limerick. It also makes us wonder why Mary and Joseph went to Arab republic of egypt, which (by Brown et al.'due south logic) requires Luke to tell united states of america about the massacre in Bethlehem (too every bit the wise men's visit, since the massacre otherwise makes little sense). Yet, every bit we've seen, Luke's intention isn't to introduce Jesus as a Moses-like deliverer born into royalty, but as a humble Samuel-like servant, who grows up in obscurity. Consequently, Luke isn't interested in Herod'south activities. Luke is interested in the lower profile aspects of Jesus' infancy—in the nearby shepherds rather than the shepherd-rex of Micah v.ii, in the Temple rather than the palace, and in Nazareth rather than Bethlehem.

Final reflections

Matthew and Luke's decisions about what not to include in their birth narratives are ofttimes seen as a point against their credibility. (If Matthew knew about Luke'southward census, he'd accept mentioned it; and if Luke knew virtually Matthew'southward massacre, he'd have mentioned information technology; then on.) Every bit we've seen, however, Matthew and Luke's decisions can't exist assessed so simplistically. Matthew and Luke don't ever tell us everything they know, and their omissions serve a purpose.

For Matthew, Jesus is a new Moses, who goes toe to toe with the world's Pharaoh-like Herods, while, for Luke, Jesus is a more destructive and Samuel-like figure—a man whose ministry lifts up the poor and downtrodden and brings down a corrupt authorities. Consequently, Matthew has good reason to mention Herod, the wise men, and the flight to Arab republic of egypt and not to mention the prescript, the shepherds, and Jesus' visits to the Temple, while Luke has adept reason to practise the contrary. Contra Brown et al., so, Matthew may have known about Caesar'south decree (etc.) and yet not mentioned information technology, while Luke may have known most Herod's massacre (etc.) and yet non mentioned information technology.

Where, so, do our considerations leave united states of america? If we want to appoint with Matthew and Luke in a fruitful way, nosotros need to appoint with them on their own terms rather than on the basis of what nosotros remember they would (or should) have said (had they known about it). Matthew and Luke describe different aspects of Jesus' birth since they portray Jesus as the culmination of different strands of biblical history, and a careful consideration of their narratives enables us to capeesh both the composure with which they exercise then too as the remarkable character of the Saviour they describe.

(Previously posted in April.)

---

James Bejon is a junior researcher at Tyndale Firm—an international evangelical research customs based in Cambridge (Uk), focused on biblical languages, biblical manuscripts, and the aboriginal world.

If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.

Much of my work is done on a freelance ground. If yous have valued this postal service, y'all can make a single or echo donation through PayPal:

Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, can add real value. Seek starting time to understand, then to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view contend as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.

westmagnstowiter1963.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/why-do-matthew-and-luke-offer-different-birth-narratives/

Share this post