Where Did Jesus Go After His Birth?
Where did Mary and Joseph take Jesus after He was born? Did they flee to Egypt, or was Jesus taken to Jerusalem, and is this a contradiction? Skeptics claim that since these two Evangelists seem to lay out different sequences of events, they contradict each other and are not historically reliable.
So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” (Matthew 2:14-15)
Matthew says that after the wise men departed, Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Egypt to escape Herod the Great's decree to kill all infants two years and younger. When Herod died, an Angel told Joseph that they could return, but on their way back, they settled in Nazareth within the region of Galilee. But when we open Luke, he seems not to mention the flight to Egypt entirely.
When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord. (Luke 2:22)
Luke tells us that Jesus was brought to Jerusalem to be dedicated to Yahweh in accordance with the Mosaic Law, as recorded in Exodus 13:1-2 and Numbers 18:15-16. They then finally end their travels in Nazareth in verse 39. It seems that since Luke doesn't mention the flight to Egypt, he is contradicting Matthew. But is this the case? There is only a contradiction if you assume something that is not explicitly stated: that Matthew and Luke provide exhaustive accounts of where Jesus traveled before settling in Nazareth. Neither of the Evangelists makes such a claim.
Some Historical Context And Literary Techniques
Both Matthew and Luke are writing about different events, and neither of them says that the other's account didn't happen, which would be a genuine contradiction. Luke explains a Jewish ritual where the firstborn son is consecrated to Yahweh in the Temple at Jerusalem. This trip was a custom for all Jews, and therefore would have been a normal, short pilgrimage to the Temple. Luke is also writing to Greek Gentiles who do not know Jewish law, so he has to explain the tradition being practiced; whereas Matthew's audience, primarily Jews, would have assumed Jesus was dedicated at the Temple and wouldn't need it to be explained to them. For these to contradict, one needs to assume that there is a strict chronological continuity between Luke 2 verses 38 and 39.
38 Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.
39 When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.
The skeptic must assume Luke is saying Jesus returned to Nazareth directly after His time in Jerusalem, but Luke never claims to be offering an exhaustive account of Jesus' life, and neither was this the custom of writing historical biographies in the 1st-century. Moreover, Luke and Acts (both written by Luke) exhibit time skips such as the 30-year gap between Luke 2:51 and 3:1; The gap of Jesus' resurrection appearances in Galilee in chapter 24; Acts 9:30-11:25 flashes forward through several years of the Church’s expansion; Acts 10:19 and 20 gaps Paul’s time in Arabia, and a 4-year gap between Acts 12 and 13. Time skips are characteristic of Luke's accounts and of Ancient biographies in general. Ancient biographies are not written like modern-day biographies. Today, we focus on every aspect of a person's life, almost exhaustive in content. But in the 1st-century, people didn't necessarily care about every aspect of someone important's life, and with a limit of writing space and writing materials, you would naturally limit your selection to those events which have the most impact on why the person was remembered or known.1 That is why Gospel scholars use all four accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) to get a whole picture of what happened through various forms of literary criticism. Which the Gospels, unlike any other historical documents, have stood their ground as reliable through these critique methods.
Luke never says Jesus was not in Egypt:
“...critics pointed out the lack of full treatment, childhood stories, psychological development and so on in the gospels; however, these aspects are also missing from other ancient biographies.”2
The skeptic would have to rid themselves of all ancient biographies and history, as the Gospels are as reliable as they come. If time gaps are characteristic of ancient biographies, then it is perfectly logical to assert that Luke also includes a gap between verses 38 and 39. Ancient people did not have a sense of the need to be somewhere constantly like we do today, and the poor in the 1st century often carried their belongings with them as they traveled.3 Since they lived a semi-nomadic lifestyle, families could set up anywhere for any period of time that is necessary. It is therefore more likely that Mary and Joseph stayed in Bethlehem for at least 2 years (given Herod's decree to kill infants under 2 years old in Matthew 2:16), possibly picking up carpentry work when available. With what we know about the 1st-century, a time gap in Luke makes a lot of sense. Jesus was probably already born when the Magi showed up in Matthew 2:2, as per Herod's decree in 2:16.
Selection, Omission, And Representation In Ancient Biography
There is no contradiction here. Matthew and Luke are deciding to include different parts of Jesus' life that fit their audiences and purposes for writing. They are speaking of different events in this same period of Jesus' life. Taking into account both narratives, we can work out a full picture of what exactly is happening here.
Mary and Joseph would have had baby Jesus in Bethlehem (Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:6-7).
After 40 days, they then brought Jesus to Jerusalem in accordance with Exodus 13 & Numbers 18 to be dedicated to Yahweh, not far north of Bethlehem (Luke 2:22-38).
Mary and Joseph then return to Bethlehem with Jesus, where at least 2 years pass before the Magi visit and deceive Herod, leading to his order to kill all infants under 2 (Matthew 2:1-12).
Being informed of Herod's order, they flee to Egypt and wait until he dies (Matthew 2:13-23).
Finally, after Herod died, Joseph was told he could return to Judea, but upon learning that Herod's son Archelaus was ruling in his place, he diverted and settled in Nazareth in the region of Galilee (Matthew 2:19-23 & Luke 2:39-40).
Since Matthew has to get the message across to Jews that Jesus was their Messiah, he had a specific purpose to demonstrate how He came out of Egypt, fulfilling Hosea 11:1. But Greeks would have no prior care about Jewish prophecy and belief, so Luke omits the flight to Egypt and fulfilled prophecy, instead focusing on Jesus' dedication and reputation as a pious child who had the favor of God upon him (Luke 2:40). Ancient biographies are also not exhaustive in their contents, and writers often selected the most important events for their purpose of writing and their audiences.
Three literary techniques can be identified here that are characteristic of ancient historical writing. The first technique is (1) Selection, as each Evangelist chose to include parts of Jesus' life that best fit their theological purposes and audience. Matthew, writing to Jews, does not need to mention Jesus being dedicated at the Temple, as every firstborn Jewish male was expected to have been. Luke, writing to Gentiles who have no idea about Jewish law and tradition, explains what is happening in a fashion that does not expect his readers to already know what Temple dedication is. Each Evangelist also frames their works in different ways. This is called (2) Representational Changes, where Matthew and Luke are presenting different events for their specific purposes. (3) Omission is the last technique at work, as Matthew omits the Temple dedication, and Luke omits the flight to Egypt and the fulfilled prophecy of Hosea 11:1. There is no contradiction, as each account complements the other and creates a fuller picture.4
Time gaps are a common result of these literary techniques. In summary, Matthew and Luke write about Jesus and mention different events and perhaps a time-skip. This is all in line with ancient historical writing. By including and omitting different events, each writer emphasizes different aspects of Jesus' life. Therefore, there is no contradiction here; rather, Matthew and Luke are utilizing selection, representation, and omission to emphasize the message of the Gospel to different audiences with different traditions, customs, and historical backgrounds. Which is completely valid by ancient standards, such as Thucydides and Herodotus’s accounts of the Persian wars, they focus on different events and aspects of the event, yet no Historian would say they made it up. The Bible once again remains reliable by ancient and modern standards.
1 (Lucian, How to Write History)
2 (Richard Burridge, What are the Gospels?, pg 93)
3 (E. Randolph Richards & Brandon J. O’Brien, Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes)
4 (Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Second Edition, pgs 45-46, 162-164, & 171-180)
Comments