EARLY IN OUR STUDY, I suggested that the attempt to “harmonize” the four gospels into a single, coherent, and chronologically ordered narrative can do violence to the distinctiveness of each account. As John suggests at the end of his gospel, Jesus said and did many things, and no single story can contain it all. Each author must make decisions about what to keep in and what to leave out; each tells the story in a particular way for the sake of a particular audience.

But I do understand the desire to harmonize. When we read the gospels side by side and carefully, we run into puzzles that are difficult to solve. Such is the case with a simple line from the gospel of Luke, in which he wraps up Joseph and Mary’s trip to the Jerusalem temple:

When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. (Luke 2:39, NIV)

That sounds pretty straightforward, doesn’t it? But it clashes with the story Matthew tells. We’ll see how in just a bit. First, let’s look at what Luke tells us about a prophet named Anna.

. . .

JOSEPH AND MARY had come to Jerusalem to do what was required of them in the Law of Moses. I assume they did so out of true devotion. How could they not, with everything that had happened? Miraculous pregnancies, angelic appearances, evangelizing shepherds—these weren’t exactly everyday occurrences. And another surprise awaited them at the temple: an elderly stranger named Simeon took the baby Jesus in his arms and prophesied over him. He rejoiced to finally see the Messiah in the flesh, but also warned Mary about the suffering she would endure as Jesus’ mother.

And now, Luke says, someone else approaches the little family:

There was also a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem. (Luke 2:36-38)

There’s some ambiguity about Anna’s age. What Luke says can be translated as “she was a widow up to (or until) eighty-four years.” That can mean one of two things. It may be that she was an eighty-four-year-old widow, as we just read. Or, it may mean that she had been a widow for eighty-four years. Depending on the age at which she married, that would make her over 100 years old.

Which is correct? Given Luke’s description of her constant worship, prayer, and fasting, I’d opt for the younger number. But either way, his basic point remains the same. She was quite old, and therefore worthy of respect for that reason alone. But the fact that she remained unmarried after the death of her husband and so deeply devoted to God for all those years marked her as someone of exceptional faith.

Did Anna hear what Simeon had said? Perhaps. But like Simeon, she had special, God-given insight into who this baby was. Also like Simeon, who was waiting for the “consolation of Israel” (vs. 25), Anna was waiting for “the redemption of Jerusalem” (vs. 38). Luke doesn’t tell us whether she said anything directly to Joseph and Mary. But with the authority of a prophet, she spoke about the child to anyone who shared her hope. She gets added to Luke’s long list of those who witnessed to who this child would be, and John the Baptist will be added to the list shortly. For the reader, it all begs a question: with all this testimony on Jesus’ behalf, will people believe?

. . .

NOW FOR THE PUZZLING VERSE we read earlier. Again, it seems straightforward: Joseph and Mary finished their business in Jerusalem and went home to Nazareth. That’s the most natural way to read what Luke tells us.

But puzzles arise when we try to reconcile this with Matthew. In Luke’s story, Nazareth is clearly the couple’s hometown. It’s the place where Gabriel appears to Mary, and from which the couple travels to Bethlehem for the census. In Matthew’s tale, however, Nazareth isn’t mentioned until well after the birth. Joseph and Mary flee Bethlehem to Egypt and don’t return until after Herod dies. Matthew makes it sound as if they want to return to Judea—possibly Bethlehem?—but don’t because Herod’s son is now in charge and it’s not safe. So they go north to Galilee instead, landing in the town of Nazareth. Matthew’s gospel, in other words, reads as if Nazareth only became their hometown after the return from Egypt.

Here’s another puzzle. When did Matthew’s magi visit the family in Bethlehem? The flow of Luke’s story suggests that after the birth of Jesus, the little family stayed in Bethlehem until it was time to go to Jerusalem. Following the Law of Moses, that period was probably forty days. Some have argued that Matthew’s magi could not have visited Bethlehem during that time, for two reasons. First, it would have taken too long for them to get there after the appearance of the star.

Second, if the magi did visit then, the family would have received gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. But then why couldn’t they afford a lamb for the sacrifice when they went to Jerusalem? And if the magi didn’t visit before Jesus was presented at the temple, then Joseph and Mary would have had to return to Bethlehem. But Luke says nothing about this; they went straight from Jerusalem to Nazareth.

It’s not impossible to reconcile the two stories, but we have to make a lot of assumptions to do so. When Luke says, for example, that Joseph and Mary left Jerusalem and went home to Nazareth, one could say that they didn’t go home right away. They first went back to Bethlehem, where they stayed long enough for the magi to visit before fleeing to Egypt, and they came back and settled in Nazareth sometime later. All of this may have taken years.

Suffice it to say that no solution satisfies everyone. It seems unlikely that a careful writer like Luke wouldn’t have known about the magi or the flight to Egypt. We simply have to accept that mentioning it didn’t suit the purposes he had for his two-volume work. We have to read Luke on his terms.

And who knows? Maybe someday we’ll get to ask Mary how it really happened.