The key point is that Luke is writing to a Roman official and Matthew is writing to Christians who were formerly Jews. Luke is writing to the oppressor and Matthew is writing to the oppressed. Luke has carefully left out those things that would upset the Roman official, Theophilus, or any other Roman official that Theophilus might show Luke's gospel. Matthew has similarly left out those things that would upset Jewish Christians.

As a Catholic I know by faith that there was no dishonesty, just good prudent editing. Paul when instructing Christians on how to talk to those outside the faith said, "...try to fit your answers to the needs of each one." Colossians 4:6. Jesus told us to be, "... be cunning as serpents and yet as harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16. So Christians should not be shocked, or scandalized if the holy evangelists exercised an honest, godly, prudence in their editing.

Matthew does not mention Nazareth at first. He briefly deals with the virginal conception and birth and then rushes on to the wise men, Herod, the slaughter of the Holy Innocents, and the flight to Egypt.

In Luke the wise men, Herod, the slaughter of the Holy Innocents and the flight to Egypt are all skipped. Jesus is born in Bethlehem, is visited by the shepherds, goes to the temple on the eighth day for circumcision, and then the Holy Family goes back to Nazareth.

What really happened? Jesus was miraculously conceived by the Holy Spirit in Nazareth. Matthew leaves this out because it would weaken the Christian claims that Jesus was the Messiah who had to be from Bethlehem, the city of David.

Luke emphasizes the same point Matthew leaves out because Jews claiming to be the Messiah were always leading revolts against Rome. So writing to a Roman official Luke plays the Messiah aspect of the Christian faith down without denying it.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, fulfilling the prophesy that he would come from Bethlehem, visited by the shepherds, whom Luke mentions, and Matthew does not, is circumcised on the eight day and returns to Nazareth.

As devout Jews the Holy Family made at least yearly pilgrimages to Jerusalem, which is a few miles from Bethlehem. Joseph had relatives in Bethlehem and there might be carpentry that he could do there. So it would be only natural that the family would visit Joseph's relatives in Bethlehem. It was during such a visit that the Wise Men showed up.

As Herod was an official appointed by Rome, Luke naturally left out the slaughter of the Holy Innocents. Starting your story of the life of Jesus by mentioning what was at least indirectly a Roman atrocity would have be very imprudent. Luke's decision to spare the feelings of the Roman official on the slaughter of the Holy Innocents is probably the key reason that the stories are so different.

Matthew on the other hand was writing to Christians who had formerly been Jews. They would have been favorably impressed by story of the Wise Men. The Romans on the other hand might suspect that the Christians were making alliances with powerful people beyond the boarders of the empire. They might have reacted negatively to the story of the Wise Men.

The Holy Family fled to Egypt eventually returned to Nazareth.

A consistent story can be constructed from the two gospels if we recognize that both writers were writing to two very different audiences. The were not testifing before a modern court, they had not promised to tell the whole truth. They picked the parts of the true story that would help them win their very different audiences.

I am currently working on this again. I left off March 30, 2009 Home