Theodorus-Heracleensis on Matthew 1

Blessed Matthew immediately, having had the purpose to teach all things from the prefaces, that Christ was shown according to the prophetic voices, providing the truth regarding the fulfilled promises and leaving not even one pretext of ignorance to the unbelieving ones, says, 'the book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham' (Mt 1:1). Instead, it could have said: 'this one was proclaimed by the voices that came before, this one was sung of by the promises to the righteous.'

It is superfluous to seek this; what difference does it make whether we say this first or the other? For through either, the descendant was shown in the same way for both. The evangelist does not even say so; for he did not say Christ was the son of David and the son of Abraham, but rather that Christ was the descendant of David and Abraham, David of the same, signifying the same thing this way, but not saying this fully in the immediate word; for he says 'the son' clearly as not the one begotten, but the descendant. But someone might say to him that Matthew did not wish to trace the lineage from David up to Abraham; for why, if he wanted this, did he not generate him according to Luke? But he says this for the reasons we have stated. He was among those twelve through whom it happened that the lineage descends to Christ.

Because therefore it seemed to show something new in the transition, having said 'Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ' (Mt 1:16), he also promised to set forth the manner for us, according to which he is born, and says: 'Now the birth of Jesus Christ was thus'; instead of saying he was not similarly born to the others, but differently. And it is possible to understand the power of God; for indeed it is called 'spirit.'

Herod secretly wished to ask the magi, knowing not how the Jews might save him as a king in their own home (Mt 2:7).

Others say that these things disagree with what remains in Luke; for if, according to Luke, he went from Bethlehem to Jerusalem and from there to Nazareth, how is it that, according to Matthew, Joseph, having been registered in Bethlehem, was carried away to Egypt? For Luke, recording the time of the birth of our Savior, mentions the 'Augustan' reign and the 'census' according to it and the things happening at the birth of the Savior, but also says, 'when the days were fulfilled to circumcise him, they brought' the child 'to Jerusalem' and, having completed the customary things, they returned to 'Nazareth.'

But Matthew does not at all remember those things in Luke, but sets aside those things which were silent in the other; I say indeed those things concerning the Magi, who perhaps, having set out from their own land at the same time as Jesus was born, had not yet made such a long journey in a short time. But how much was this intervening time between the appearing of the star and the arrival of the Magi? The evangelist himself taught it, saying 'after two years' and 'according to the time which was determined by the Magi'; has not a two-year period already passed from the birth of the Lord until the arrival of the aforementioned?

So then those things in the sacred evangelists do not disagree, if Luke brings him up to Jerusalem with the parents on the eighth day of the birth and from there leads him to Nazareth, but Matthew records him again in Bethlehem after a two-year period having passed, and having departed from there to Egypt because of the king's plot. And it was likely not only a second time, but many times, for them to frequent that place for the sake of the memory of the extraordinary.

For since the time was not one for both, there is another way to reason. Luke says they were not able to stay in Bethlehem because of the multitude of those staying there on account of the pretext of the census, but Matthew says, 'having come into the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother, and having fallen down, they worshiped him.' But