What are some differences between the Infancy stories in Matthew and Luke?

Answer 1

Matthew focuses less on the birth of Christ than Luke and moves quickly to the adult life of Christ. Luke is thought to have obtained much of his information from Jesus' mother Mary hence the extra detail. Matthew mentions Mary's conceiving by the power of the Holy Ghost and also includes the angel's appearance to Joseph. Luke includes details of the angel's appearance to Mary instead with the same information about the conception. Luke's extra information contains the visit of the shepherds and the presentation of the baby Jesus at the Temple.

Matthew doesn't give the story about Mary and the angel, but he goes into more detail about Joseph and the angel.

Luke's is more detailed. he talks about Mary and the angel Gabriel, and that they are in Nazarath.

Matthew doesnt talk about the visit to Elizabeth, but Luke does.

Answer 2

A:Some of the differences between the infancy stories in Matthew and Luke:

The angel

• In Matthew, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph, and only in a dream (Matt 1:20), to reassure Joseph that Mary had not been unfaithful.
• In Luke, the angel appeared to Mary even before she conceived.

It is not rational for both accounts to be true. When the angel appeared to Mary would have been the time for it to appear to Joseph also. Moreover, it does not make sense for the angel to appear in a dream in one case, but in the flesh in the other.

Travel after the birth of Jesus

• In Matthew, the young family fled from Bethlehem to Egypt some time soon after the birth of Jesus, out of fear of King Herod (2:14). They did not go to Nazareth until after the death of Herod, and even then because they were warned that it was still too dangerous for them to return to Bethlehem.
• In Luke, the young family travelled to Jerusalem just a few weeks after the birth of Jesus, then returned peacefully to their home in Nazareth. They returned to Jerusalem each year for the Passover, oblivious to any danger that Matthew's Gospel would imply in doing so.

Many try to rationalise this by saying that the events of Luke occurred first and that the events of Matthew did not occur until perhaps two years later. But this raises the question of what they were doing in Bethlehem after having returned to Nazareth, and why they had a house there on this occasion. It also raises the question of why Matthew's author had to explain that when they turned aside and travelled to Galilee, they found "a city called Nazareth."

The visitors

• In Matthew, magi came from the east bearing gifts.
• In Luke, poor shepherds came to worship Jesus, after being told about him by angels.

The author of Matthew knew nothing of Luke's shepherds and their angels; the author of Luke knew nothing of Matthew's magi or the star of Bethlehem.

Home town

• In Matthew, Bethlehem is the home town of Joseph and Mary. This is shown by their ownership of a house (Matt 2:11) and the fact that they were returning from Egypt to Bethlehem (not Nazareth, as they would if this was their home town) but being warned in a dream, turned aside and travelled to Galilee and there lived in a city called Nazareth (2:22-23).
• In Luke, Nazareth is the home town of Jospeh and Mary. This results in the disjunction that Joseph travelled to Bethlehem for the census that occurred in 6 CE when Quirinius was governor of Syria, yet Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod who died ten years earlier.

Genealogy

• In Matthew, Jesus' ancestry goes back through his supposed father Joseph, his grandfather Heli, to the great Zorobabel, son of Salathiel, then David. Salathiel's father was Jechonias, leading via the royal line back to King David.
• In Luke, Jesus' ancestry goes back through his supposed father Joseph, his grandfather Jacob, to the great Zorobabel, son of Salathiel, then David. Salathiel's father was Neri, leading via a line of commoners back to King David.

Many try to rationalise these differences by saying that Luke's genealogy was that of Mary - in spite of Luke 3:23. The fact is that neither author knew what the other had written.