As a Christian I have found that we must be honest with the Bible, interpreting it for what it itself says, and not imposing our own doctrines onto the Bible. Even doctrines that we think are Biblical must be tested against the Bible, to see if they are really supported by the Bible. And one doctrine not supported by the Bible is the doctrine of Inerrancy.

The Bible can be trusted, but not the human doctrine of Inerrancy.


The two infancy narratives of Jesus, in Matthew and Luke, contain a number of divergences and contradictions. One such contradiction concerns the geographic origin of Jesus and his family. The SAB explains an aspect of this contradiction as follows:
"2:14 - Matthew tells us that Joseph, Mary, and the baby Jesus left for Egypt soon after Jesus' birth, yet Luke (2:39) says they went directly to Nazareth after his birth."
Gastrich's reply to the SAB is short and sweet. He states that:
"Matthew 2:23 indicates that Jesus and His family went to Nazareth to live. Luke simply omits the flight to and from Egypt."

Jason Gastrich employs a common Inerrantist tactic in his attempt to harmonize Matthew and Luke. Where two Biblical narratives differ, Inerrantists often resort to the explanation that the narrators have included some details, and have omitted other details, yet together the two narratives tell a complete story. It is often asserted that an omission is not itself a contradiction. There is an element of truth to such an assertion. After all, when two people give an account of the same event, they will typically include some details which the other person does not include, and vice-versa. After all, you cannot contradict nothing, which is all that an omission is! But while it is correct to say that an omission cannot result in a contradiction, in itself, this point can also be misleading. For, it is the narrative as a whole which may or may not contradict another narrative. It is a trivial point that anything remaining unsaid within that narrative cannot contradict another narrative.
And in order to properly interpret the narrative as a whole, one must first provide the best interpretation of that particular narrative, not first leap to force its harmonization with a second narrative.

When we examine the two infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke, it is apparent that there is in fact a contradiction. The contradiction is not uncovered by comparing the account of the flight to Egypt in Matthew with its omission in Luke, as the Inerrantist would have you do. Instead, the contradiction is demonstrated by the correct interpretation of each of the two narratives - paying special attention to the two sets of movements of Jesus' family, and to the towns and houses Jesus' family is claimed to live in by Matthew and Luke.

New Testament scholar Raymond Brown summarises the issues well:
"The two narratives are not only different - they are contrary to each other in a number of details. According to Luke 1:26 and 2:39 Mary lives in Nazareth, and so that the census of Augustus is invoked to explain how the child was born in Bethlehem, away from home. In Matthew there is no hint of a coming to Bethlehem, for Joseph and Mary are in a house at Bethlehem where seemingly Jesus was born (2:11). The only journey that Matthew has to explain is why the family went to Nazareth when they came from Egypt instead of returning to their native Bethlehem (2:22-23). A second difficulty is that Luke tells us that the family returned peaceably to Nazareth after the birth at Bethlehem (2:22, 39); this is irreconcilable with Matthew's implication (2:16) that the child was almost two years old when the family fled from Bethlehem to Egypt and even older when the family came back from Egypt and moved to Nazareth."
- Raymond E. Brown The birth of the Messiah -- a commentary on the infancy narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (New York: Doubleday, 1993, updated edition), p. 36.

But let us examine these points in more detail, by first interpreting Luke, and then Matthew.

Luke's Account

Luke has the Holy Family move from their hometown in Nazareth in Galilee, to Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus, and back to Nazareth in Galilee.


Nazareth in Galilee is shown to be the Holy Family's hometown before the birth of Jesus in Luke 2:3-4. Joseph, Jesus' legal father, has to travel from his "own town" of Nazareth in Galilee, to Bethlehem in Judea, only because of the census of Quirinius:
Luke 2:1-4: "In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 All went to their own towns to be registered. 4 Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David."
Also, in Luke 1.26, Nazareth was declared to be Joseph's hometown nine months earlier, at the time of Mary's conception:
Luke 1.26-27: "Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary."
According to Luke, Jesus was born in Bethlehem:
Luke 2:6-7: "While they were there [in Bethlehem], the time came for her to deliver her child. 7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son … "
Luke then describes the circumcision of Jesus, and the purification (from the 'impurities' of childbirth) of Mary. Circumcision was carried out on the eighth day after birth (Lev 12:3), and the mother was considered ceremonially unclean for the 7 days following childbirth, and 33 days following the circumcision (Lev 12:2, 4). After this 40-day period, the mother had to provide a sheep as a sacrifice to restore her purity. This sacrifice could be changed to two turtledoves or pigeons if she were too poor to afford a sheep (Lev 12:6-8). As Luke 2:24 shows, Mary offered two turtledoves or pigeons:
Luke 2:21-24: "After eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child; and he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. 22 When the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male shall be designated as holy to the Lord"), 24 and they offered a sacrifice according to what is stated in the law of the Lord, "a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.""
Leviticus 12 sets out the relevant "law of Moses", the requirements of which took a period of 40 days following childbirth. Luke is then quite clear that Joseph and Mary returned to their "own town" of Nazareth "when they had finished" these 40 days of legal requirements:
Luke 2:39: "When they [Joseph and Mary] had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.

Matthew's Account

However, Matthew has the Holy Family take an entirely different route, from an entirely different hometown!


At some point following the birth of Jesus, the Holy Family are commanded to go to Egypt, from their house in Bethlehem. If this "house" (Matthew 2:11) is the Holy Family's own house, this is complete contradiction to Luke's account, which places the Holy Family's hometown in Nazareth, Galilee. This is the most likely meaning of 'oikia' ("house"), which most naturally refers to a family's abode. As Raymond Brown explains:
"Presumably this was the house which served as the home of Joseph and Mary who were inhabitants of Bethlehem. The view is quite different from that of Luke 2:1-7. There have been many attempts, often quite forced, to harmonize the information." (p. 176)
Even if this natural interpretation of 'oikia' is rejected by the Inerrantist, there is conclusive proof later on in chapter 2 of Matthew that Bethlehem was the Holy Family's hometown. For, when Joseph is told to return to Israel:
1. Joseph's first thought is to return to Judea (the province in which Bethlehem is), not Nazareth (Matthew 2:22). Naturally, the Holy Family wished to return to their hometown, which Matthew 2:22 reveals was in Judea. But Nazareth is in Galilee, not Judea!
2. Only after being warned in a dream not to return to Judea, Joseph goes instead to Galilee (Matthew 2:22).
3. On coming to Nazareth, Joseph is not described as returning to the home that Luke believes he has there. To the contrary, Joseph is described as "making his home" there. The phrase "made his home in a town called Nazareth" (Matthew 2:23) reveals that Joseph is settling in a new place, which Matthew now introduces for the first time! Far from returning to his hometown, Joseph has arrived in a town that is altogether new to him.
4. What is more, it is only because of Joseph's arrival in Nazareth at this time that Matthew sees fit to claim that Jesus will now fulfill the prophecy, "He will be called a Nazorean" (Matthew 2:23).
As Raymond Brown summarises:
"Joseph's first thought was to return to Judea, i.e., to "Bethlehem of Judea" (2:1), because he and Mary lived in a house there (2:11). Since Joseph and Mary were citizens of Bethlehem, Matthew takes pains to explain why they went to Nazareth. In Luke's account, where they are citizens of Nazareth, the painstaking explanation is centered on why they went to Bethlehem (2:1-5)."
So, in contrast to Luke, Matthew has the Holy Family move from their house in Bethlehem, to Egypt, and then settle for the first time in Nazareth!


Moreover, this occurs over a period of some years following Jesus' birth. Remember that Luke has Jesus leave Bethlehem for Jerusalem after 40 days, the term of Mary's purification (Luke 2:21-24, 39). So, in Luke, Jesus is still little more than a newborn baby. But the wise men who visited Jesus in Matthew's account provide information to Herod about Jesus' age that leads to him killing all boys up to two years old. The wise men had supposedly told Herod when the star had appeared, so that Herod knew Jesus's age (i.e. up to 2 years old).
Matthew 2:16: "When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men."
And in Matthew's account, the Holy Family remain in Egypt for some time more, awaiting the death of Herod. Yet, according to Luke, Jesus travelled to Nazareth with his family only after 40 days:
Matthew 2:15, 19-21: "and [Joseph, the child and his mother] remained there [in Egypt] until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, "Out of Egypt I have called my son." … 19 When Herod died, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, 20 "Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child's life are dead." "

Summary: The contradiction


Luke places Joseph and Mary at home in Nazareth, Galilee, from before the birth of Jesus (Luke 1:26-27; 2:4). After a trip to Bethlehem, Judea (Luke 2:5), during which Mary gives birth to Jesus and has him circumcised (Luke 2:6-7, 21), they return home to Nazareth, Galilee. If he is presented to the temple in Jerusalem after 40 days as was the custom (Matthew 2:21-38) - the return would be 40 days after Jesus' birth (Luke 2:39).
But:
Matthew places Joseph and Mary's original home in Bethlehem, Judea. Matthew does not believe that their original home was in Nazareth, Galilee. This is clear from the fact that they begin in Bethlehem, as shown by the visit to their home in Bethlehem, Judea by the wise men in Matthew 2:1-12, and Herod seeking to destroy all Bethlehem infants in Matthew 2:16-18; and especially as shown by the angel of the Lord telling them to return home to Judea, Israel in Matthew 2:19-21, and the decision not to do so but to settle in a new town, Nazareth, Galilee.
The two situations are represented in the two maps below: So for Luke: the Holy Family begins in Nazareth, Galilee. (1) They travel to Bethlehem, Judea for a temporary census, and remain approximately 40 days after Jesus's birth there, before (2) making sacrifice at Jerusalem. (3) They then return to their home in Nazareth, Galilee.

But for Matthew: the Holy Family begins in Bethlehem, Judea. (1) After a period of up to 2 years, they then travel to Egypt, to wait out the death of Herod, for a further period of months or years. They are then told to return to Israel - but (2) later travel to Galilee to "settle" in the town of Nazareth.

The contradiction is demonstrated by a proper examination of each of the two infancy narratives. Gastrich's attempt to claim that the two accounts merely involve 'omissions' is disproved by the contradictory movements of the Holy Family, and the different hometowns which are presupposed in Matthew (Bethlehem) and Luke (Nazareth).