Seeming Conflicts and Differences

In order to understand the depths to which we have sunk in our quest to understand the birth of Jesus, we need to start by looking at how the best of our theological thinking conjures up before our eyes seemingly irreconcilable conflicts between the two birth accounts, Matthew and Luke. (This was, of course, the first essential step that had to be taken.) All recognize some points of similarity, leading naturally to the conclusion that they both tell of the same event, a conclusion never questioned until the commencement of Rudolf Steiner’s spiritual disclosures early in the twentieth century. So extensive are these differences and conflicts that serious theologians have uniformly concluded that while one or the other account could be fully historical they cannot both be, likely neither.

One problem that theology has either not recognized, or having recognized has chosen to ignore, has to do with John the Baptist. If, as heretofore assumed, both Nativity accounts describe the same event, then there could have been no John the Baptist, for he would have died when Herod, according to Matthew’s Gospel, slew all the infants in the region who were under two years of age, for John was of Judah and only six months older than Jesus according to Luke’s Gospel. The existence of this circumstance, so terribly important, is but one of those many things buried in scripture that were to come to light when the time was right. And one has to wonder how Luke, as thorough as he was in describing the birth of John, could have left unexplained by so much as a single detail how the child escaped such a horrible fate.

Some of the many discrepancies that have been noted between the respective Nativity accounts in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke do not necessarily render the respective accounts incompatible. In other cases, however, the differences are irreconcilable if the two accounts purport to describe the birth of the same child and are both assumed to be completely true.

In addition to the problem of John the Baptist mentioned above, let us look at others that have been widely observed. Let us look first at the differences that are clearly inconsistencies.

The genealogies are different in many ways, including:

a) Matthew’s genealogy begins his account; Luke’s does not appear until after Jesus is baptized by John.
b) Matthew goes back to Abraham; Luke goes back to Adam as the son of God.
c) Matthew lists forty-two generations from Abraham; Luke lists seventy-seven from Adam, with fifty-seven of them being from Abraham.
d) Matthew shows the descent through David’s son Solomon; Luke through David’s son, Nathan.
e) As a matter of form rather than substance, Matthew narrates from father to son; Luke from son to father.

While several of these differences are not necessarily in conflict, item c) would seem to be, and item d) clearly is (this is more fully shown in The Burning Bush).

In Matthew the parents live in Bethlehem before the conception and birth; in Luke they live in Nazareth.

Matthew places the birth in a house; Luke in a stable with the infant placed in a manger.

In Matthew’s account the journey with the child to Nazareth has to be far later than the return there by the family in Luke’s Gospel.

To the four incompatible differences listed above should be added the problem of the survival of John the Baptist previously mentioned.

Other differences listed below have been widely noted and, while not necessarily incompatible on an individual basis, nevertheless paint a picture of such different circumstances as to strongly suggest that they do not describe the same event.

In Matthew the announcing angel appears to Joseph; in Luke it appears to Mary.

In Matthew Joseph is puzzled by his espoused’s pregnancy; in Luke he shows no such reaction.

Matthew tells of the visit of the magi and their threefold gifts, Herod’s scheme, the angelic warning to Joseph, the flight into and sojourn in Egypt, the angelic direction to return to Israel, and the decision to go to Nazareth in Galilee rather than Bethlehem out of fear regarding Herod’s son Archelaus; Luke says nothing of any of this.

Matthew cites five prophetic passages as being fulfilled in his Nativity account; Luke cites none. The last such prophecy, “He shall be called a Nazarene,” is not to be found in the canon, suggesting a wider scope of prophecy applicable to this child.

Matthew’s Nativity says nothing about John the Baptist; Luke gives an extensive account of the birth of John, the relationship between Mary and Elizabeth, Mary’s journey to and sojourn with Elizabeth, the effect of the voice of the impregnated Mary upon the infant in Elizabeth’s womb, and the importance of the child being given the name “John.”

Matthew says nothing of Mary’s inspiration; Luke gives her extensive Magnificat.

Except for the return to Nazareth, Matthew includes none of the enormous panorama of events narrated by Luke’s second chapter, including:

a) The enrollment by Caesar Augustus when Quirinius was governor of Syria;
b) The journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem;
c) The enwrapment in swaddling cloths;
d) The appearance of the angel and then the heavenly chorus to the shepherds by night in the field;
e) The visit of the shepherds;
f) The wonderment by Mary and her pondering of these events in her heart;
g) The circumcision of the infant;
h) The purification according to the law of Moses;
i) The presentation of the infant in Jerusalem, and the offering of a sacrifice there;
j) The account of Simeon’s vision of his master, his blessing upon the family, and his prophecy to Mary;
k) The account of the prophetess Anna; and
l) Most significantly, the account of the twelve-year old Jesus in the temple.

Both Nativity accounts are part of the Bible, and like the larger whole, can be taken to be literally true if not interpreted as one understands our everyday prose. It clearly incorporates some historical facts, but not for the purpose of telling history. It is telling a spiritual story of the greatest magnitude to which any historical facts utilized are indentured—mere servants of a far larger purpose. The story has served so well during that time of Christendom’s infancy, childhood, youth and adolescence. But as the third millennium dawns, a greater maturity of understanding is imperative. It must be seen that allegory, metaphor, poetry, all the literary arsenal, are equally tools to be employed. The important thing in the writing is not whether its account was literally true in the vulgar mode, as mere earthly phenomena, but rather whether it was true in its ultimately more real and lasting spiritual meaning. Ideally and often it was true in both, at least sufficiently so that its earthly connection was clear. But seldom will the deepest meaning be attained through a strictly earthly understanding of the words, for the Evangelists wrote of what they saw with eyes of spirit.

All the major biblical writers utilized forms other than mere prosaic accounts of historical fact. Jesus especially did this for the uninitiated, for he frequently spoke in parables. And Paul shows us specifically in Galatians that Moses spoke in allegories. The things they spoke represented spiritual truth, though they intentionally used a story often wholly or partly fictional from the vulgar standpoint to convey the spiritual truth. Preachers today do the same. Too often when the Bible is read it is assumed that the events reflected in the Gospels superseded the application of this principle of interpretation for those of us for whom the Gospels were written. But we delude ourselves if we think that the stories that have come down to us, and the events that took place in them historically, make us any different from the multitudes to whom the parables themselves were given. The Bible is itself a large allegory reflecting deep spiritual reality in which a few beautiful historical facts are also related.

As it happens, there is more historical accuracy in both of the Nativity accounts than our scholars have imagined. It is only since the last part of the nineteenth century, as Christendom enters its late adolescence if you please, that serious question has been widely directed toward all the seeming conflicts in the Nativity accounts. This was a necessary step in the process of the blooming forth of a deeper understanding in maturing Christendom from adolescence into adulthood in the third millennium of its life.