The Chronological Relation of the Birth Narratives in Matthew and Luke

I have been contemplating the birth narratives of Jesus throughout the season leading up to the Christmas. Of particular interest has been the possible harmonization of the Matthean and Lukan accounts. I have always been troubled by why Luke would comment so much on the birth night versus Matthew’s telling of later events.

In considering these two accounts, Matthew is dated to 1 to 2 years following the birth night of Luke 2. The explanation for dating the events of Matthew 2 to this later period is based on limited exegetical details. As I considered the argument for this later dating, I was surprised by a more likely reading that views the accounts as explaining contemporary events.

1) Matthew 2:1 explains the events occurred after Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Since Luke explains Mary and Joseph came to Bethlehem from Nazareth for the purpose of a census, it seems improbable for them to remain in Bethlehem for 2 years. There is no indication that Joseph would be pausing his carpentry or leaving his home built during betrothal for this extended period.

2) The words of Matthew 2:16 tell that Herod’s decree was to kill all male children under 2 years old. From this detail, many readers take Jesus’ likely age as close to 2 years of age. This seems an unnecessary deduction from the text. This could be understood as an exaggerated reaction by Herod without cause. From the dialogues of Herod with the Magi, the age of the “newborn king of the Jews” is never discussed. The words used for the “child” throughout the passage do not in any way indicate age. No specificity should be derived from the term as it could indicate a two year old or an infant.

3) Finally, some readers make emphasis on the term of Matthew 2:11 that the child is with his mother in a house. This is normally contrasted to the word used in Luke 2 that the child was born in a manger, because there was no place for them in the “inn.” With a clearer understanding of the Greek word for “inn” reveals the preferred reading of Matthew 2 as contemporary with Luke 2.

Inn is a word better translated as a guest room in a private home divided by a curtain. Luke is well aware of another Greek word that would clearly communicate an inn (a temporary dwelling for travelers for commercial gain of the owner). The “inn” word is used by Luke in the story of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10. It is also used in Luke 22 when Jesus’ disciples looked for a place to celebrate the Last Supper or Passover Sader.

Thus, it seems a more likely interpretation that the manger was the animal housing structure connected to a home. Mary and Joseph stayed with the animals because there was no room in the guest room. The home was likely a relative of Joseph since he was of the house and lineage of David. It seems probable that some relatives remained in the City of David. It is possible that some of Joseph’s ancestors returned from Babylonian captivity to Nazareth in Galilee during the return based on the decree of Cyrus.

If the inn of Luke 2 is really a domestic guest room, then Matthew’s house where the Magi visited is very likely Joseph’s relative’s home. Perhaps whoever occupied the guest room had now returned home allowing Mary and Joseph to reside inside during the visit of the Magi. This would mean that the Magi may have visited the newborn king short days or weeks since the night of Jesus’ birth. Thus, the reader can combine Luke 2 and Matthew 2 and see the ones declaring the birth of Messiah were angels, shepherds, and magi. Put your wiseman not too far from your nativity displays. They may have only been a day or two late!