Are all of the details in the Infancy Narratives historically true?

Answer 1

AnswerThere are two very different and incompatible Infancy Narratives in The Bible, one in Matthew's Gospel and one in Luke's Gospel.

Matthew says Bethlehem was the home town of Mary and Joseph. Some time after Jesus was born, they fled from Bethlehem to Egypt, for fear of King Herod, and remained there for several years until Herod had died. After Herod's death, they began the return journey to Bethlehem but, being warned in a dream, turned aside and travelled to Nazareth in Galilee. The Gospel says that Joseph's father was called Jacob, reminiscent of the Old Testament story of Joseph, whose father was also called Jacob. The Gospel says that Herod had all the infant boys under two years old slaughtered, parallelling the Egyptian slaughter of all the infant boys under two years old. Matthew was able to show a great deal of similarity between Jesus and Moses.

Luke says Nazareth was the home town of Mary and Joseph. Joseph had to go to Bethlehem because of a census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and for some reason had to take his fiancee with him although she was heavily pregnant. Shortly after the birth of Jesus, the young family travelled from Bethlehem to Jerusalem to present Jesus at the Temple, then returned peacefully home. The Gospel says that Heli was the father of Joseph, although Christian apologists who clearly see the contradiction claim that Heli was really the father of Mary.

First of all, we can see that Nazareth andBethlehem can not both be the home town of Mary and Joseph. Christian tradition accepts Luke's version and ignores Matthew's version wothout comment. Similarly, they can not have travelled peacefully from Bethlehem to Nazareth just forty days after the birth of Jesus and fled from Bethlehem to Egypt for fear of Herod.

Quirinius was indeed the governor of Syria, but not until 6 CE, ten years after the death of Jesus. And the first Roman census in the Levant was undertaken by Quirinius in that year. Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) says that the best explanation is that, although Luke likes to set his Christian drama in the context of well-known events from antiquity, sometimes he does so inaccurately. He also points out that there are many differences between Matthew's genealogy and that of Luke (especially from David on), and says that neither is likely to be historically accurate.

Even when we investigate minutiae such as whether the angel told Joseph of Mary's impending pregnancy (Matthew) or told Mary herself (Luke), and whether Zoroastrian priests (magi) or shepherds came to visit the baby Jesus, we find improbable inconsistencies that demonstrate the accounts to be, in the words of Bishop Spong, "Christian midrash."

From the major events of the infancy narratives down to the minor accounts that add colour and drama, there is nothing about either account that can plausibly be called historically true.