Introduction

The Gospels were written by four different men to four unique audiences, so it is natural that they would include different details concerning the life of Christ. But their writing was superintended by the Holy Spirit, who guaranteed that what each wrote was the absolute truth. There are differences, but they can all be harmonized.

Birth Narrative- the Egypt Problem

The books of Matthew and Luke have a seeming discrepancy with regards to the Birth narrative in that Luke has no mention of the entire flight to Egypt episode, rather gives the impression that Mary and Joseph are based at Nazareth and eventually return there after going to Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus due to the Roman census. Matthew, on the other hand begins directly with the birth at Bethlehem seemingly as though they were always there, and Nazareth seems to be a place of refuge on return from Egypt.

The question then is, does Luke’s narrative allow for enough time for a trip to Egypt? Between the circumcision of Jesus and the trip to the temple was 32 days—about a month (I’m not sure why this is). Trying to fit a trip to Egypt and back in that time frame is problematic. A better way to reconcile Matthew’s and Luke’s narratives is to place the flight to Egypt after Jesus’ appearance in the temple. This assumes that Joseph and Mary remained in Bethlehem after Jesus’ birth and that they had a place to stay—the “house” of Matthew 2:11 “On entering the house the saw the child with Mary his mother…”

Luke 2:39 says, “When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.” Note that Luke does not say that they immediately returned to Galilee, and there is no reason to insert that word into the verse. One could just as easily insert the word “eventually”, it could have been days later or months If we place the flight to Egypt in the middle of Luke 2:39, we have a workable chronology.

Luke has the family travel to Bethlehem, but then it seems that rather than return to Nazareth right after as is ostensibly implied in Luke 2:39, it is not quite right after, rather they remain there upto the Presentation, and some duration, after before being driven to Egypt and only eventually are able to go back to Nazareth. Matthew while recounting this caveat, omits to mention that there were from Nazareth originally, simply beginning in v.2:1 with “Jesus was born in Bethlehem”, with no further explanation and also does not explanation that the reason that they might have chosen Nazareth to go back to was because Joseph did have some roots there. Joseph might have a second home or a family home in Bethlehem which might have been the reason that he stayed around after the birth, a possibility that Jimmy Akin presented to Bart Ehrman, or had relatives there that he could stay with, else Joseph might have tried to find work and resettle the family there, perhaps he even felt that the City of David would be an appropriate place for the Messiah to be raised in. There are any number of possible scenarios that could have played out at a time we know little about, and the Gospels only give a whistle-stop tour.

The Census of Quirinius Problem

Quirinius’ census has been a point of controversy among biblical scholars and skeptics for centuries. History tells us that Caesar Augustus reigned over the Roman Empire from 27 BC to AD 14 and ordered a census to be conducted during his tenure. Herod the Great reigned in Judea until 4 BC, so Jesus had to be born sometime in or before 4 BC. Luke gives us a few historical details to set the stage for the birth of Christ: “In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria)” (Luke 2:1–2). A second challenge is whether such a census would actually require everyone to go to their hometowns in the first place. This, as the objection goes, would lead to unnecessary chaos with all the moving populations. My response to the second objection would be that perhaps there weren’t that many people in those days who migrated from their ancestral lands. Or perhaps the Romans were brutal enough to require it of the populations regardless of the misery it would cause.

Luke’s mention of Quirinius (Cyrenius) as governor of Syria during the time of Caesar’s census appears to cause a problem as history records that Quirinius held that governorship between AD 6 and 7, at least ten years after the birth of Jesus. There are at least three possibilities for how we can interpret Luke 2:2 concerning the census and Quirinius:

(1) The Greek word for “first” in Luke 2:2 is a form of the word protos and can be translated “before.” Thus Luke 2:2 could actually be translated, “This was the census taken before Quirinius was governor of Syria.” These guys do a good job of analyzing the Greek: https://bible.org/article/problem-luke-22-ithis-was-first-census-taken-when-quirinius-was-governor-syriai

(2) Quirinius actually ruled Syria on two separate occasions, and there were actually two censuses taken. The “first census” mentioned in Luke 2:2 occurred during Quirinius’ first term as governor, and another during his second term. The second census is mentioned in Acts 5:37 and probably took place between AD 6 and 7 (Josephus links this census to an uprising led by Judas of Galilee). Luke was the author of both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, and his goal was to write “an orderly account” (Luke 1:3). It seems that Luke did write a careful, orderly account: he mentions two censuses, and it was during the first one that Jesus was born. It would be unlikely for such a meticulous historian as Luke has been shown to be in other places, to make a blatant mistake in his timeline of events.  Luke demonstrates remarkable historical accuracy overall, and even shows both an awareness of this later census (cf. Acts 5:37) and an understanding that Jesus was not born this late (cf. Luke 1:5).

Inspiring Philosophy does a terrific job of showing how both, that there were more than one census, that there is evidence of a previous census that literally caused a revolt recorded by Tacitus, demonstrating that the census itself could be a cause of oppression and a further means of intimidation and subjugation. Further censuses would enable the rulers to determine their true wealth in terms of how much tax they could expect and how much manpower/workforce. See the video here, I haven’t had time to transcribe it:

This video is longer and I’ve not properly seen it. The content might be different from the previous in that it deals with why in fact it was Josephus rather than Luke who might have been mistaken about the census dates.

The Father of Joseph Problem

Some critics find another supposed contradiction in the genealogies associated with the narratives of Jesus’ birth. Matthew 1:16 says that Joseph’s father was Jacob; Luke 3:23 says that Joseph’s father was Heli. There are several theories, but the best answer to this seeming discrepancy is that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. There was no Koine Greek word with the exclusive meaning of “son-in-law,” and so Joseph is called the “son of Heli” due to his marriage to Heli’s daughter, Mary. Joseph was a “son” by marriage.

Again, Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy gives and excellent account of this. He gives two possible explanations, both of which seem like plausible reasons for why one might call “father” someone who is not their biological father. We can even see this today when someone calls their father-in-law “dad” (not all use first name for elders as in Western societies, or when an orphan child is brought up by someone other their biological parent. IP’s first solution is like we said, referring to his father-in-law, Heli, as “father”. In the second, Jacob sires a child by his wife, due to the death of the latter, in accordance with Mosaic law, so that he might have a heir. The first child born to this relationship becomes the deceased brother’s legal heir. Thus the child has both a legal father and a biological father. This is a law which provides the widow with an heir and an inheritance, to avoid her becoming destitute. Being half-brothers, they have different genealogies each, one through Mathan and one through Mathat, and so on.