Agreement Between Matthew And Luke About Jesus' Childhood

Critics make much of the differences between the accounts of Jesus' childhood in Matthew and Luke. We're told, for example, that "In chronicling Jesus' infancy, Matthew and Luke agree only on a few basic points….on most other details they completely differ." (Geza Vermes, The Nativity [New York: Doubleday, 2006], 10) Supposedly, we should believe that "the nativity story occurs in just two of the four gospels, Matthew and Luke, and that they hardly agree on any of the details". Andrew Lincoln refers to a "paucity of any agreements" between the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke (Born Of A Virgin? [London, England: SPCK, 2013], 129).

When agreements between Matthew and Luke are listed, it's common to mention a dozen or less: Raymond Brown, The Birth Of The Messiah (New York, New York: Doubleday, 1999), 34-35; Joseph Fitzmyer, The Gospel According To Luke I-IX (New York, New York: Doubleday, 1981), 307; Robert Stein, The New American Commentary: Luke (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 2003), n. 9 on 70-71; etc. Darrell Bock lists nineteen (Luke, Volume 1, 1:1-9:50 [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1994], 71-72). Patricia McDonald includes twenty-three (in Jeremy Corley, ed., New Perspectives On The Nativity [New York, New York: T&T Clark, 2009], 200-201).

One of the factors involved in producing such a variety of numbers is that people sometimes list one item that could be broken down into two or more. And different people are comparing different things. Furthermore, lists often leave out items that could have been included. Part of what's going on with the smaller lists of agreements between Matthew and Luke is that the compilers of those lists are so focused on what the first two chapters of the gospels say about the earliest weeks (Luke) or years (Matthew) of Jesus' life. Weeks and years are significantly different units of time. So, the comparison is already uneven in an important way. And discussions of Jesus' childhood often include his being raised in Nazareth and the incident when he was twelve years old at the end of Luke 2, yet those later periods of Jesus' childhood often have little or no place in lists of agreements between Matthew and Luke. We can gather further information about Jesus' childhood in later chapters of both gospels and Acts. However, lists of agreements between Matthew and Luke often don't include much or anything from those later chapters.

The level of agreement between the authors is particularly significant given that they chose to focus on different individuals (Matthew focusing on Joseph and Luke focusing on Mary), seem to often be focusing on different timeframes (Matthew 2:16 suggests that the events of Matthew 2 occurred after Luke 2:38), and have different objectives in other contexts. We need to be careful about how much we expect the authors to agree.

In the remainder of this post, I want to address agreements between Matthew and Luke, in the entirety of their writings, concerning anything about Jesus' childhood. Here are forty examples (more could be cited):

Jesus was born near the end of the life of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1, 2:19-22, Luke 1:5, 1:31-45, 2:1-2, 3:1-2, 3:23). Keep in mind that knowing that Jesus was in his thirties or close to that age when he died wouldn't place his birth so close to Herod's death. Jesus' birth could easily have been placed well after Herod's death, even years later, yet still be consistent with Jesus' being roughly in his thirties when he died. The fact that Matthew and Luke agree in placing the birth so close to Herod's death becomes more significant when you realize how easily they could have differed on the subject.

The father was named Joseph (Matthew 1:16, Luke 1:27).

Joseph was a righteous man (Matthew 1:19, Luke 2:39). By contrast, Abraham's father was an idolater (Joshua 24:2), Asa's father was ungodly (1 Kings 15:3), etc. Righteous men aren't always portrayed as having righteous fathers. A contrast between father and son can make the son look better, and in Jesus' case could have underscored the fact that his identity had more to do with his heavenly Father. I'm not denying that there would also be advantages to portraying Jesus' father as righteous. But examples like Abraham and Asa demonstrate that the righteousness of Joseph wouldn't have been a given to Matthew and Luke, which makes their agreement on the issue more significant. It's one of the less noteworthy agreements, but it is an agreement.

The mother was named Mary (Matthew 1:16, Luke 1:27).

Jesus' family was of low social status (Matthew 13:54-58, Luke 2:24, 4:22).

Mary's pregnancy wasn't something announced to the parents well ahead of time (Matthew 1:19-20, Luke 1:31-34). By contrast, the birth of Isaac, for example, was announced to the parents long before it occurred (Genesis 12:1-4, 15:4-5, 17:16-21, 18:10-15). Matthew and Luke agree that the conception of Jesus wasn't similarly anticipated. Rather, Joseph and Mary seem to be surprised in the annunciation passages in Matthew and Luke. The angel's announcement to Joseph suggests that no similar announcement had been made earlier. Mary reacts with surprise to Gabriel's announcement and apparently becomes pregnant shortly after Gabriel arrives (as suggested by her language in 1:34 and what's described in 1:38-45). Since no previous announcements are mentioned, and Joseph and Mary are described as righteous individuals who readily accept what's announced to them, it's doubtful that they had received a previous, unmentioned announcement that they had disregarded. Furthermore, if they'd both been expecting the pregnancy well ahead of time, they probably would have arranged to have gotten married earlier. God could have reasons for bringing about a premarital pregnancy (e.g., the evidence it would provide for the historicity of the events for future generations), but Joseph and Mary would have wanted to avoid that sort of scenario. And notice how well the two annunciation passages fit together. Each account makes more sense if the other spouse also didn't know about the pregnancy until just before it occurred or later.

The pregnancy occurred when Joseph and Mary were engaged (Matthew 1:18, 1:20, 1:24, Luke 1:27-45, 2:5). It could have been placed before or after the engagement instead. Raymond Brown wrote, "If the marital situation between Joseph and Mary [portrayed in Matthew's gospel] were not a fact and could have been created according to the dictates of Christian imagination, it is difficult to see why a situation less open to scandal was not contrived. For instance, instead of picturing Mary as already pregnant, the narrator could have imagined her as betrothed to Joseph but without child. Then he could have had the angel of the Lord appear and begin his message with 'Joseph, son of David, hasten to take Mary your wife into your home.' Everything else in 1:20-25 could follow, and there would be no hint of scandal....Matthew's world view and that of his opponents is not one in which deities have sexual relations with men or women and beget children. He is in confrontation with Pharisees and in his account of the ministry he is most careful not to give them anything they can use against Jesus (e.g., his omitting the spittle miracle narrated in Mark 8:22-26). If the situation described in Matthew is not a factual one but is the product of Christian romantic imagination, one must deem it a great religious blunder; for it gave rise to the charge of illegitimacy against Jesus that was the mainstay of anti-Christian polemic for many centuries....One may hypothesize that independently Matthew and Luke hit upon the pattern of an annunciation, the idea of a virginal conception, etc.; but it is more plausible that these are earlier ideas that each has taken over and developed in his own way. I find totally implausible that they would independently chance upon the same peculiar marital situation as a setting for the annunciation." (The Birth Of The Messiah [New York, New York: Doubleday, 1999], 142-143, n. 28 on 143, n. 41 on 247)

Mary was a virgin at the time of the conception (Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 1:27-42).

The virginal conception occurred through the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18, Luke 1:35).

Mary knew about the pregnancy before Joseph (Matthew 1:18, Luke 1:31), which contrasts with how Abraham found out about Sarah's pregnancy before she did (Genesis 17:16). For more about the significance of that contrast, see here.

Mary didn't tell Joseph about the pregnancy early on (Matthew 1:18, Luke 1:39-40). For further discussion, see here.

Joseph and Mary followed through with the marriage (Matthew 1:24, Luke 2:1-51; for a discussion of when the marriage occurs in Luke, see here). Notice the significance of this point in light of another factor mentioned earlier. If Mary's pregnancy was premarital, yet Joseph and Mary carried through with the marriage, it's unlikely that Mary was pregnant through sexual intercourse with a man other than Joseph. Their carrying through with the marriage doesn't tell us whether the pregnancy occurred through sexual intercourse with Joseph or a virginal conception, but it does serve as evidence against a scenario in which Mary was sexually involved with another man.

The wedding didn't occur just after the conception of Jesus, but instead occurred long enough afterward to allow the series of events we see in Matthew 1:18-24 and Luke 1:39-56.

The child's name came from Divine revelation rather than the choice of the parents (Matthew 1:21, Luke 1:31). In the Old Testament, the parents or other people frequently chose the child's name, including in cases that involved a pregnancy that was supernatural in some manner (Genesis 5:28-9, 25:25-6, 30:6-24, Exodus 2:10, 2:22, Judges 13:24, Ruth 4:17, 1 Samuel 1:20).

The announcement of Jesus' name comes from an angel (Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:30-31), in contrast to the direct announcement of Isaac's name by God in Genesis 17:19, for example. An announcement by God would have been especially significant in the context of the infancy narratives, given the Father/Son relationship between God the Father and Jesus. But both gospels attribute the announcement of the name to an angel instead.

Jesus was announced to be a Savior in the sense of delivering people from sin (Matthew 1:21, Luke 1:77, 2:11). Notice that an announcement is involved, which is a historical event. It's not just a matter of narrators, Matthew and Luke, commenting on the subject. The issue of when Jesus was proclaimed or perceived to have a particular identity (Messiah, Son of God, etc.) is often disputed. Therefore, it's significant if Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was announced to have a particular identity during the timeframe surrounding Jesus' birth. The two authors are agreeing that God wanted Jesus identified that way so early, that people had access to such information at that point, etc. What people did with that information, including whether they understood it correctly, is another matter.

He was proclaimed the ruler of the promised Messianic kingdom (Matthew 2:2-6, Luke 1:32).

There were no children of Joseph from a previous marriage or other siblings of Jesus during the earliest period of his childhood. Since Matthew and Luke claim that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, they probably would have offered an explanation of where Jesus' older siblings came from if there were such siblings to account for. No such explanation is offered. Though the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke say a lot about Jesus' family and their travels, for example, no siblings of Jesus are mentioned. Rather, the family is repeatedly described by mentioning Joseph, Mary, and Jesus (Matthew 2:13-14, 2:19-21, Luke 2:4-5, 2:16). One or more of the three is mentioned many times in the infancy narratives, but no sibling is mentioned aside from the allusion by means of "firstborn" in Luke 2:7. Scholars often note parallels in the New Testament, especially Matthew's gospel, between the life of Jesus and Moses' life. Sometimes Exodus 4:19-20 is paralleled to Matthew 2:13-14 and 2:19-21. (The parallels to Moses would be divided up between Joseph and Jesus, and only Jesus is paralleled to Moses in other contexts, but such inconsistency is often allowed by those who are drawing the comparisons.) Since Exodus 4 refers to multiple children of Moses, an inclusion of multiple children in Matthew 2 would have created a closer parallel. Think of how easily Matthew could have referred to Joseph's taking Jesus' siblings along with the rest of the family in 2:13-14 and 2:19-21. Similarly, Moses had older siblings (Exodus 2:4, 7:7), so Jesus could have been more closely paralleled to Moses by the mentioning of siblings who were older. (Likewise, David had older siblings, as we see in 1 Samuel 16:11, and Jesus is often paralleled to David.) The usual terminology for biological siblings is used to describe Jesus' siblings when they're mentioned later in both gospels and Acts. Non-biological siblings are never mentioned, even when people seem to be referring to Jesus' family as a whole (Matthew 13:55-56).

Jesus had siblings (Matthew 1:25, 12:46-50, 13:55-56, Luke 2:7, 8:19, Acts 1:14), though they apparently weren't born until after the passages in the infancy narratives mentioned above.

Joseph was a descendant of David (Matthew 1:20, Luke 2:4).

Whether Mary was a descendant of David isn't mentioned. Since nonbiological descent from David weakens the force of Davidic ancestry, it would have been in the gospel authors' interest to assert that Mary was a descendant of David as well. Instead, only Joseph's Davidic ancestry is mentioned. Given how early and widespread belief in Mary's Davidic ancestry was in the patristic era, I think it's likely that she was a descendant of David. But Matthew and Luke don't mention it. Whatever their reason for not mentioning it – perhaps they didn't think she was a descendant of David, didn't have information on the subject, or knew about her Davidic ancestry, but thought mentioning Joseph's Davidic descent was sufficient, for example – they agree in only mentioning Joseph's relationship with David.

Joseph had close ties with Bethlehem beyond his ancestry there. He was in a house in the city about two years after Jesus' birth in Matthew (2:11-16), and Luke implies that Joseph had property and/or close relatives there (2:1-7). For more about the relevant material in both gospels, see here.

Jesus entered the world through birth rather than just appearing (e.g., the angels who appear on earth as adults in other Biblical passages).

Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1, Luke 2:6).

The birth occurred after Joseph and Mary started living together (Matthew 1:24-25, Luke 2:7).

The birth process is described in an ordinary manner, using commonplace phrases like "she gave birth" and "every firstborn male that opens the womb" (Matthew 1:25, Luke 2:7, 2:23), without the sort of elaboration we see in other sources. Contrast the accounts in Matthew and Luke to later accounts of Jesus' birth, as well as the birth stories of other figures. There are some unusual births narrated in the Old Testament, for example (Genesis 25:26, 35:16-19, 1 Samuel 4:19-22). In Matthew and Luke, unlike some later accounts, there's no description of Mary's virginity in partu, a lack of pain in the birth process, light or other manifestations of glory coming from Jesus as he was born, etc. As W.D. Davies and Dale Allison note, "The birth itself is mentioned only in passing ([Matthew] 1.25). This makes for a striking contrast with the later apocryphal infancy narratives….Matthew's conciseness, his leaving so much unsaid, could not but stimulate later apocryphal fantasy" (Matthew 1-7 [New York, New York: T&T Clark, 2010], 225, 261).

Not only is the birth relatively ordinary, but so is Jesus' behavior as a child. We don't see him speaking as an infant, striking people dead, healing people as a child, or doing other such things described in other documents about his childhood and other sources addressing the childhood of other prominent individuals.

Not just in the context of Jesus' activity, but more generally as well, there's a significant lack of miracles. In the context of discussing a dozen miracles in the Protevangelium Of James, Charles Quarles notes, "The proved tendency of nonhistorical birth narratives was to multiply the miraculous.", and he contrasts that with "The comparatively modest miracle material in the canonical birth narratives" (Midrash Criticism [Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1998], 117).

Jesus was sinless in his childhood (Matthew 3:15, Luke 4:34, Acts 3:14, 7:52, 22:14; also implied by references to Jesus' deity in both authors).

Joseph and Mary stayed in a house in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:11, Luke 2:1-7). For a discussion of some of the evidence suggesting that Luke 2 is referring to a house Joseph and Mary stayed in, see here. The significance of this agreement between Matthew and Luke can be appreciated by noting the common misconception that Luke 2 refers to an inn. Luke isn't actually referring to an inn, but the misconception that he's doing so illustrates how the two gospels could have differed. Matthew and Luke could differ on the matter without contradicting each other, since they're addressing different timeframes. But their agreement is noteworthy. Shortly after mentioning "the contradictions between Matthew and Luke" (The Nativity [New York: Doubleday, 2006], 10), Geza Vermes writes, "There is no question in Matthew of Jesus being born in an impoverished shelter. The family is found by the wise men in a house in Bethlehem." (11, emphasis his) In reality, Matthew and Luke both refer to a house, so Vermes is the one who's mistaken.

The family relocated to Nazareth (Matthew 2:23, Luke 2:39). And their residing in Nazareth is something unlikely to be fabricated (John 1:46, 7:41, 7:52, Acts 24:5). As W.D. Davies and Dale Allison note, "Moreover, given the belief in the significance of Bethlehem and in Jesus' birth there, the prominence of Nazareth in the gospel tradition would have been all the more puzzling. Mt 2.23 is, therefore, an attempt to come to grips with a difficult fact." (Matthew 1-7 [New York, New York: T&T Clark, 2010], 274)

The move to Nazareth occurred shortly after the birth (Matthew 2:20-22, Luke 2:39-40). As with other details Matthew and Luke agree about, notice how easily they could have disagreed. It's unlikely that they would have made up a move to Nazareth if it didn't occur. It's even more unlikely that they'd both place it so early in Jesus' life if they were independently making up stories. Why not have him go to Nazareth as an adolescent or in his adulthood, for example?

Jesus was raised by his parents in Nazareth in a long-term home rather than just staying there with them briefly (Matthew 2:22-23, 3:13, 4:12-13, 13:54-57, Luke 2:39-40, 2:51, 4:16). To see how easily that aspect of his background could have been different or have been portrayed differently, think of Moses' being raised under Pharaoh's daughter (Exodus 2:5-10), Samuel's living under Eli in a sanctuary context (1 Samuel 2:11), or John the Baptist in the wilderness (Luke 1:80). Critics of the infancy narratives often claim that Jesus is being paralleled to Moses and Samuel and that Jesus is being portrayed as superior to John the Baptist. Yet, Matthew and Luke agree in portraying Jesus' childhood as a largely ordinary one spent in his parents' home.

Joseph lived throughout Jesus' earliest years (Matthew 2:16, 2:22-23, Luke 2:41-51). All of the gospels agree in portraying Joseph as absent during Jesus' public ministry, probably because he had died sometime earlier. It's significant that Matthew and Luke agree in portraying Joseph as alive throughout Jesus' earliest years. Matthew 2:16 and the verses following suggest that Joseph was still alive when Jesus was around two years old. The account of Jesus at age twelve at the end of Luke 2 has Joseph still alive at that point in Jesus' life.

Mary was alive throughout Jesus' childhood (Matthew 12:46, Acts 1:14).

At least some of the siblings of Jesus were alive throughout the rest of Jesus' childhood after their birth (Matthew 12:46, Acts 1:14).

John the Baptist held a high view of Jesus based on the events surrounding Jesus' birth (Matthew 3:14, Luke 1:44). Matthew doesn't discuss John the Baptist until his third chapter, but the events of the first two chapters best explain why John holds such a high view of Jesus in Matthew 3:14, prior to his public ministry. John's assessment of Jesus in 3:14 makes the most sense if the nature of Jesus' character described there went back to his childhood. If Jesus had lived an ordinary sinful childhood prior to an exemplary adulthood, for example, then 3:14 would make less sense. And John's Messianic view of Jesus probably included common Messianic expectations related to childhood, such as Davidic ancestry and a Bethlehem birthplace. Both gospels have John expecting the imminent emergence of the Messiah and holding a high view of Jesus prior to Jesus' public ministry. In both gospels, John's Messianic expectations are described just after the infancy material and are made more coherent by that material.

The events surrounding Jesus' birth didn't result in consistent faith or consistent unbelief in Mary's life, but instead resulted in the sort of volatile inconsistency we see in figures like Peter and Nicodemus. The fact that Mary was chosen to give birth to Jesus suggests that she had some degree of faith, and she's grouped together with Joseph, Elizabeth, the magi, and other godly individuals in the infancy narratives and later (Acts 1:14). Yet, she's largely absent during Jesus' public ministry and sometimes grouped with Jesus' unbelieving siblings or criticized in some other manner (Matthew 12:46-50, 13:57, Luke 2:34-35, 2:48-50, 8:19-21). For a fuller discussion of these passages, see Eric Svendsen's Who Is My Mother? (Amityville, New York: Calvary Press, 2001).

The events of Jesus' childhood didn't prevent his brothers from opposing him (Matthew 12:46-50, 13:57, Luke 8:19-21). For more about these passages, see Svendsen's book cited above.

Tim McGrew notes an agreement between Matthew 2:22 and Luke 2:41-43:

"There is one other point of interest about the reference to Archelaus. He was deposed by the Romans and banished to Gaul in the year AD 6, about ten years after he took the throne and in the twelfth year after Jesus’ birth. Curiously enough, Luke’s narrative, which never mentions Archelaus, tells us that Jesus’ parents went up to Jerusalem for the feast every year, but the first time it mentions his going with them is when he is twelve years old. The chronological coincidence is not a guarantee, but it is at least plausible that they took him with them only when Archelaus was no longer in power and the shadow of their harrowing journey to Egypt had passed."