Contradicting a Contradiction

You are all aware, I'm quite sure, that the Bible itself claims to be "God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16). If God is reliable, then, the Bible is reliable. Jesus said, "Your Word is truth" (John 17:17). Pretty reliable. "Oh, but Jesus's 'Scripture' was the Old Testament." You might claim that, but Peter disagrees (2 Peter 3:16). That's all good, but, of course, you should also be aware that the Bible contradicts itself, right? The Christmas story is one of the clearest. Matthew and Luke are the two Christmas story tellers. Mark and John skipped it. Matthew tells of Joseph's lineage and gives us the story of the wise men and the flight to Egypt. Luke is silent on all that, gives a different lineage, and includes shepherds, angels, and a visit to Jerusalem that Matthew ignores. So, what was it? Did the family flee to Egypt or did they go to Jerusalem and then to Nazareth? Clearly, a manifest contradiction. Or ... was it?

Let's look at the story ... nay, the stories. Jesus was born, and, after eight days, Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2:21). Then, "when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord" (Luke 2:22). How long was that? According to Leviticus, when a woman gives birth, she is unclean for 7 days (Lev 12:2) followed by 33 days (Lev 12:4), after which she was required to complete a purification ritual (Luke 12:6-8). Thus, the time from birth to completion of purification was 40 days. At that point, then, Simeon met the Messiah (Luke 2:25-35) followed by Anna, the prophetess (Luke 2:36-38). Then Luke says, "When they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city of Nazareth" (Luke 2:39). What we have here is a sequence. What we don't have here is a complete timeline. That is, we know that Jesus was born, then Jesus was circumcised, then Mary was purified, then the family went to Jerusalem, and finally they went to Nazareth. For a timeline, we know that Jesus was circumcised after 8 days and that the purification period was 40 days, but we don't know how long they were in Jerusalem and we don't know if anything occurred between Jerusalem and Nazareth. Did they, for instance, go to Egypt? If so, for how long? Now, that's an interesting question on its own. The wise men arrived sometime between birth and 2 years (Matt 2:16), but not at birth. (Compare "manger" (Luke 2:7) with "house" (Matt 2:11).) When they left, God warned Joseph to flee to Egypt (Matt 2:13-14), and they only returned after Herod died (Matt 2:15). Note, by the way, that they returned to Israel from Egypt, apparently headed back to Judea -- to Bethlehem. But Joseph was concerned about Herod's brother ruling in Judea, so he opted for a safer place in Galilee -- Nazareth. Now, according to history, Herod died in 4BC. So if Jesus was born in 6BC as most scholars believe today, the longest Jesus could have lived in Egypt was 2 years, although very likely much less. (The closer the magi arrived at the 2 year period, the shorter time Jesus would have spent in Egypt.) So, after the 40 days -- purification period -- did Joseph and Mary return to Bethlehem, flee to Egypt after the visit of the wise men, and return to Nazareth (Matt 2:23) then? Would that be a contradiction to Luke's account? I don't think so. Luke includes nothing like "immediately" or "the next day" or anything like it. You can insert "immediately" if you like, but I could just as easily insert "eventually" and you couldn't prove otherwise. And, just as Matthew's account includes nothing about angels and shepherds and Luke's account includes not a word about magi or Egypt, there is no reason to assume that either didn't happen on the basis of silence. The argument from silence is a poor one.

The way we arrive at the two accounts as a contradiction is by starting with the premise that God's Word is not reliable, that God's Word is not God's Word. He didn't breath it. He didn't supply it. He didn't protect it. In fact, the way we arrive at these two accounts as contradictory rather than complimentary is by assuming that you just can't trust Jesus when He says, "Your Word is truth." And while I would not be surprised if those who don't follow Christ don't trust Jesus or the Bible, I would be surprised if one who steadfastly claimed such could be classified as a follower of Christ.