Why did Joseph and Mary stay in Bethlehem for 2+ years after Jesus was born?

David Ames said:

George Somsel said:

Except that Matthew says that they fled to Egypt.

Question: In first century middle east would you want to travel with a new baby [40 days old or so] or with a 2 year old?  

Want and need are two separate things.  The text doesn't present a picture that the holy family thought they would go on a vacation to Egypt—they were fleeing for safety.  Also, it allowed Matthew to connect them with the tradition of the Exodus ("Out of Egypt …").

Actually Matthew says they want to eat you up after the magi visited. Luke says that they went to Nazareth after the temple dedication and purification sacrifice. Two different events.

Whyndell Gizzard said:

I think it was just a lousy real estate market took forever to sell their house.

[Y] BTDT

Thank you for your very informative post. A few points may please be considered, though it is very late.

1. Distance between Jerusalem (Herod's place) and Bethlehem  may take 2 to 3 days of travel for wise men. Herod may not have the patience to wait for more than 1 year or so, as he has felt threatened of his position already. So it is likely that the wise men have traveled for more than 1 year before reaching Jerusalem.

2. "Born king of Jews" can be viewed as the next person born to take up Kingship e.g. born to conquer.

3. In Taxilla (olden India, todays Pakistan),  there was a belief before Islamic era that the wise men passed through that place. Thomas also visited that place in 60 AD., met King Gondophores. The only university at that period in the East was Taxilla University, where wise men from all east were present. Taxilla University was established in 600 BCE and continued till 500 CE. Thomas further came down to India (west coast) to meet Jews there, established 7 churches in Kerala, one half church,  one in Anuradhapura, Srilanka and 1 in Chennai, East coast . 

We saw his star rise in the East, Herod asking for exact time of the star, more than 1 year travel for 4000 km distance, existence of only University at that time, being with circle of relatives till child grows up...all somehow coincides with 2 years..

Please google and see, you may get more insights and also feel free to mention if I am wrong..

Bryan S. said:

So the wise men had LESS THAN FORTY DAYS to visit Jesus in Bethlehem, or He would have been gone to Jerusalem. After that, He would have been back in Nazareth for a short time, and then in Egypt for a period of time.

Question: How far is it from Bethlehem to Jerusalem?  [[Answer: about 5 miles]] They would not have had to MOVE to Jerusalem only walked to the Temple and then returned home to Bethlehem after the Ceremony. 

Next question: Did Luke cover everything? [John admits that he did not cover everything.] Did Luke perhaps not know of the time in Egypt?  Mathew traveled with Jesus.  Paul did not.  Luke joined Paul some time latter.  Mathew had the opportunity to question or hear the stories that Mary told.  Luke did not have that opportunity.  Assuming that Luke did interview Mary - How thoroughly did he question "the mother of his Lord"?   

Bryan S. said:

The passage says the wise men asked, “Where is he that is born King of the Jews?” They were looking for the King that was newly born. They were not looking for a two year old boy.

Is not one 'born to be king' still 'born to be king' many many years after his birth?  

I always assumed St. Joseph found work while St. Mary was recovering from childbirth. Maybe they made plans to stay if he did well enough?

Mike Childs said:

The text of Matthew 3:11 says the Magi saw a "child" (παιδίον) not a "baby" (βρέφος)  as in Luke 2:16. 

personally, I don’t find this argument convincing and is at best inconclusive, as I think it assumes a level of technical precision in the Greek that is just not there. A child may be a baby as much a baby may be a child. 

—-

My own view is that each position has strengths and weaknesses forming an unresolvable tension this side of new creation. And since neither position has any significance doctrinal impact (only effecting the reading of a tiny portion of Luke and Matthew, I see no point in being hardline about it. I’m in the evangelical minority who believe that the Magi visited Jesus as a newborn baby - mainly disagree And that’s fine by me. 

Liam Maguire said:

My own view is that each position has strengths and weaknesses forming an unresolvable tension this side of new creation. And since neither position has any significance doctrinal impact (only effecting the reading of a tiny portion of Luke and Matthew, I see no point in being hardline about it. I’m in the evangelical minority who believe that the Magi visited Jesus as a newborn baby - mainly disagree And that’s fine by me. 

I certainly agree with your statement that "I see no point in being hardline about it."  I do find the use of "child" (παιδίον) to be more convincing that you, but not conclusive, I agree.  But with the other details in Matthew, I think it unlikely that there was a quick return to Nazareth after the birth.