A Question of Dates

Before proceeding farther, it will be well to give some attention to the two chief reasons adduced by those who suppose that the visit of the Magi and the flight into Egypt took place a year later than is commonly believed.

The first is the silence of St. Luke, who, after relating all that occurred in connection with the Purification, says: “And after they had performed all things according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their city Nazareth”¹—omitting all mention of the flight into Egypt and of the massacre of the Innocents. We should, therefore (they contend), gather from his words that Mary and Joseph returned at once to their home at Nazareth, and that these events all occurred at a later date. But, in the first place, those who attach importance to this argument seem not to perceive that it would prove too much; it oversteps its object, and, in doing so, neutralizes all its force. That St. Luke should omit the account of the flight into Egypt, which is given by St. Matthew, who on his part never alludes to the Purification, is intelligible; but that his history of the Infancy should be irreconcilable with it, and leave no place for it, is not intelligible, for this Evangelist goes on to say: “And the Child grew, and waxed strong, full of wisdom; and the grace of God was in Him. And His parents went every year to Jerusalem at the solemn day of the Pasch;”² and then follows the narration of what took place on one of these occasions, when Jesus was twelve years old. While the exile in Egypt lasted, it is plainly impossible that Mary and Joseph should have gone up every year to keep the Pasch. Where, then, is space left for their abode in Egypt, allowing even for the shortest computation of its length? St. Luke, in this case, would not only have omitted all mention of it at the time to which it is commonly referred, but have put it out of the question, so to say, at any future time. This could not be. If it be urged that, though St. Luke says “every year,” this may be understood of every year during which they abode at Nazareth, all account of the exile into Egypt being omitted because St. Matthew had already related it, this contention would apply, and much more legitimately, to the having passed it over at an earlier time. The argument, consequently, would prove too much, or it would prove too little. It would remove no difficulty, and would create others; for instance, an apparent discrepancy with St. Matthew, who plainly connects the visit of the Magi with the Nativity: “When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Juda, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem”.³ Moreover, the adoration of the Magi unquestionably took place at Bethlehem. If, therefore, the afore-mentioned supposition be admitted, we shall have to account for the Holy Family’s stay at Bethlehem a year later, and that not at the time of the Pasch, which would have led them into its vicinity.

The difficulty which this hypothesis is intended to remove may be met by a much simpler explanation. St. Matthew, as has been observed, makes no mention of the Purification, and from his account we might conclude that the angel appeared to Joseph and bade him fly into Egypt immediately after the departure of the Kings, whereas time must have intervened for the Purification, which could not take place until the fortieth day had been completed; of this St. Matthew takes no notice, but follows up his subject to its close. St. Luke, in like manner, after relating the circumstances attending the Purification, continues his own subject of Mary and Joseph’s fulfillment of the prescriptions of the Law and, passing over the interval of the flight into Egypt, records their return to settle in their own city of Nazareth. We have the authority of the great St. Augustine for this view.⁴

Maria d’Agreda has an observation on the subject which is much to the purpose. After saying that the perfect accordance of the two Evangelists had been shown to her, she draws attention to the fact that St. Luke, when speaking of the return of Mary and Joseph to Nazareth, immediately adds the words to which reference has been made: “And the Child grew, and waxed strong, full of wisdom; and the grace of God was in Him”. Now all this, she remarks, would not have been manifested until the years of early infancy had been passed; but the observation would naturally find its place after the return from Egypt, when Jesus had attained the age in which children begin to show the full use of reason. At that date, therefore, we may presume, St. Luke takes up and pursues his narrative.

It would be a mistake to judge the Gospel narratives as though they were designed to be independent and complete histories of our Lord’s life. They were apparently written, each of them, with a leading object in view, and relate chiefly the facts which serve to establish it. Moreover, St. Luke, who was evidently and, we might say, necessarily well acquainted with all that had been previously written, introduces fresh facts, while he omits those which St. Matthew and St. Mark had recorded. The same may be observed of the Gospel of St. John, which was written later than the others, and contains much additional matter, while avoiding repetition of what had been narrated by his predecessors. Thus the several Gospels may be said to be supplementary to each other.⁵

The second reason alleged, which at first sight seems plausible, is that when Herod perceived that he had been deluded by the wise men, he sent “and killed all the men-children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men”⁶—that is, the time when he had learned from them that the star appeared. All children between the age of two years and that date were to be slaughtered. Now, if the Infant was just born, why, it is argued, slay all the children of two years old? Does not this very fact go to prove that, from the information he had obtained, Herod had reason to believe that Jesus might possibly be approaching that age, and was, at least, above one year old? But the question may be reversed. Why, if he believed that the Child was between one and two years of age did he cause the new-born infants to be slain among whom He would not in that case be found? Does it not seem more probable that his jealous suspicions would suggest to him that the star which had summoned the Magi had possibly appeared subsequently to the birth of the Infant; and, as to him the shedding of blood was no more than the spilling of so much water, he would desire to make sure of his victim by including older children in the slaughter? “If,” says St. John Chrysostom, “Herod commands the massacre of all children born within two years, let it cause no wonder; because, fear and fury raging in this tyrant, he, from excess of caution and unbridled power to persecute, included a longer time, so that none who had reached that age, and among them especially He on whose account the rest were killed, should escape him.”⁷

Local tradition, never to be lightly disregarded, points to Bethlehem as the place where Joseph was in sleep bidden by the angel to take the Child and His Mother and flee into Egypt. The Holy Family, it is said, had returned thither, not, however, to the cave of the Nativity, but to a small house not far distant, known afterwards as the house of Joseph, near to which was a little grotto. Tradition has ever preserved in Bethlehem the memory of this grotto, calling it the Grotto of Milk, because the Blessed Virgin is said to have often nursed her Divine Son therein.⁸

Orsini, however, in his History of the Blessed Virgin, advances the opinion, for which he quotes the authority of St. John Chrysostom, that, after they had performed all things according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee to their city Nazareth; and this, with the view of reconciling the words of St. Luke with St. Matthew’s account. At Nazareth, then, he believes, Joseph received the divine command, and thence commenced his journey into Egypt, taking Bethlehem on the way. We cannot but think, however, that in thus disposing of the difficulty created by this apparent discrepancy, far more serious difficulties are created. From Nazareth, where they would have been in comparative safety, the Holy Family, according to this account, would have returned to the very focus of danger. The tradition of their having been at Bethlehem before the flight is too marked, however, for Orsini to think of setting it aside. “Whatever,” he adds, “was the motive which led Joseph and Mary to the crater of a volcano, there is no doubt that they stayed there only a few hours, and that they made haste to reach a maritime town of the Philistines in order to join the first caravan going to Egypt.”⁹

Another difficulty in regard to this view of the return to Nazareth may be perceived in the time necessarily consumed (about ten days) upon the journey to and from that place. Even supposing, then, that Joseph received the angel’s commands immediately on arriving there, this adds considerably to the interval between the departure of the Magi and the massacre of the Innocents. We have reason, therefore, to conclude that the Holy Family after the Presentation returned at once, not to Nazareth, but to Bethlehem.

It may be asked, however, why should Joseph and Mary have returned to Bethlehem after accomplishing all their legal obligations at Jerusalem. It did not lie naturally on their road to Nazareth and made, to all appearance, an unnecessary delay and prolongation of their journey. For this a reason has been suggested which certainly, we cannot but think, has high probability in its favor. Did Joseph and Mary really purpose to return to Nazareth? Had they not rather resolved to settle at Bethlehem? Joseph had taken Mary thither by a Providential dispensation, the compulsory enrollment of every family in the place to which they belonged. Here she had brought forth her Divine Babe; here His birth was celebrated by the Angels of Heaven; here He was adored by the shepherds on the night of His Nativity; here He was circumcised and received His Name of Jesus; and here He was visited and worshiped by the Magi. Might not this constellation of divine mysteries clustering round Bethlehem have appeared in Joseph’s eyes as so many signs from God that he should take up his abode in the city of David? There are certain indications in the Gospel itself of such a purpose having been entertained by him. We find later, on the return of the Holy Family from their exile in Egypt, that Joseph was, apparently, not intending to go back to Nazareth, but that, when he arrived on the confines of Judea, and heard that “Archelaus reigned in Judea in the room of Herod his father, he was afraid to go thither”. It was to Bethlehem, then, that he had probably contemplated taking Mary and Jesus. If he had been on his road to Galilee, this news would not have alarmed him, neither would he have needed the angel’s warning, which caused him to “retire into the quarters of Galilee”.¹⁰

To this supposition no slight countenance is given by St. Matthew’s observation, “that it might be fulfilled which was said by the prophets: that He shall be called a Nazarite”;¹¹ by which he seems to imply that Joseph had intended to go to Bethlehem, but that his progress was arrested by his fear of Archelaus, and, being warned in sleep, he turned aside to Nazareth, and thus was led unconsciously to fulfill what the prophets had said. Joseph did not go to Nazareth in order to fulfill the prophecy. The prophecy had its fulfillment independently of his will, and from one of those circumstances which escape all human calculation, but have formed part of the Divine counsels.