Scholars - how do you reconcile the different narratives in the new testament accounts of what happened immediately after Jesus birth?

[u/lucie_d_reams]

Creative explanations only - I'm not looking for generic justifications for this.

For those who aren't aware - some of the accounts of what happened right after Jesus' birth conflict with each other (from the first 4 books of the NT).

***Update - I will rate your arguement based on how many bowls of pottage I award you (scale from 1-5 bowls)

[u/PopePae]

You’re mainly going to find armchair “scholars” here, honestly.

Realistically the answer lies in the fact that the gospels must be taken in the context of their literary, theological, and historical context - especially the Synoptics. There is clear literary interdependence among them, including the fact that they aren’t trying to be (nor can they be) modern historical chronicles. The moment you begin reading them this way or imposing those modern conventions upon them you’re already off to a bad start. I recommend reading about the synoptic problem and the context of gospel literature in order to understand why different gospels have various levels of detail, literary devices, and authorial emphasis among other things.

Here’s what I say to my students: if you’re imposing a simplistic reason or modern standard upon ancient work - you’re going to have a bad time. Looks like other commenters and even yourself, OP, are doing just that.

[u/lucie_d_reams → u/PopePae]

This is very insightful - may I ask how you interpret my question? If taking in context of all those above, how do you factor in those accounts when asking yourself about context?