Are the Infancy Narratives Historically Reliable?

Nick, the atheist whose original arguments I addressed here, returned with better ones. Specifically, he points to seeming contradictions in the Infancy Narratives:

Marten de Vos, Nativity of Jesus (1577)

I'm sure you're aware that the [G]ospels were written long after the death of Jesus and also after the epistles of Paul, which mention none of the alleged facts of Jesus' life. They were also copied and recopied by scribes that could have had their own religious agendas. 

The question is about Jesus' birth followed by Herod's massacre. Now through my research Ive found that when the [G]ospels were written, many years after Jesus' death, nobody knew when he was born. Jews expected the Messiah to come from Bethlehem (Micah 5:2) but John's [G]ospel specifically remarks that he was born in Galilee and not Bethlehem. 

To fix this detail Matthew and Luke handle the problem differently and have him getting there by different routes. Matthew has Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem all along, moving to Nazareth long after the birth of Jesus. Luke, by contrast, acknowledges that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth before Jesus was born. 

Luke says that Caesar Augustus decreed a census and everyone had to go 'to his own city'. Joseph was of the house of David and therefore had to go to Bethlehem. This seems odd because why would the Romans require Joseph to go to the city where David lived a millennium earlier? Moreover, the census decreed by Caesar Augustus wasn't made until AD 6, long after Herod's death. Why the glaring contradictions? 

Shouldn't that throw up a red flag that Matthew traces Joseph's decent from King David via 28 intermediate generations, while Luke has 41 generations? Could it not be possible that these two different views were a desperate attempt to fulfill the prophecy of Micah, while tactlessly mentioning events that historians are capable of independently checking?

We should realize at the outset that this whole line of argument presupposes that Jesus historically existed. That is, it presupposes that there was a Jesus of Nazareth, creating the historical problem of how to also present Him as Jesus of Bethlehem. If Jesus were a myth, they could have just set the story in Bethlehem to begin with.  So I don't think atheists can grant the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth for purposes of these types of questions, and then retracts that historicity when it suits them.  In other words, the nails are in the coffin on Nick's first arguments (that Jesus was a repackaged Egyptian or Greek or Roman myth).

Having said that, Nick really raises nine separate issues worth addressing:

1. I'm sure you're aware that the gospels were written long after the death of Jesus and also after the epistles of Paul, which mention none of the alleged facts of Jesus' life.

The Gospels were probably written a few decades after the Death and Resurrection of Christ, but still within the span of time in which plenty of eyewitnesses were alive.  And it's true that St. Paul’s letters almost certainly come first.

It's a gross exaggeration to say he mentions “none of the alleged facts of Jesus’ life,” but it’s true that he doesn’t dwell on many of the details prior to His death and Resurrection.  That makes sense, though. Paul is writing in response to specific controversies facing the early Church.  He's not writing to pagans who need to learn about who Jesus is.  He's writing to existing Christians. So he skips a lot of the background, because they already know it.

In other words, he's writing apologetics, not a biography.  The Gospels are the biographies of Christ.  You don't see a lot of biography in Paul's letters, or a lot of apologetics in the Synoptic Gospels, but that's because they're different genres of Books.

2. They were also copied and recopied by scribes that could have had their own religious agendas.

Early-Second Century Parchment
Containing Part of John 18

There were, quite quickly, numerous copies of the various New Testament writings spread throughout the entire known world. So even if an unscrupulous scribe had attempted to add or alter some details, it’d be obvious, since the rest of the manuscripts would remain the same.  And we have really ancient manuscripts of certain parts of the New Testament, and don't see evidence of tomfoolery when compared to the modern copies.

3. The question is about Jesus' birth followed by Herod's massacre. Now through my research I've found that when the [G]ospels were written, many years after Jesus' death, nobody knew when he was born.

I don't know that it's true that “nobody knew when He was born,” and I don't know what sort of research could ever hope to prove that.  It is, in any case, largely irrelevant.  We’re dealing with where Jesus was born, not when.

The Gospels never tell us the exact day (or even year) when He was born, but they do tell us where. And that’s a very knowable detail. In particular, the Gospel of Luke seems to be based off of Mary’s own account: there are a number of details only she witnessed, and not found elsewhere.  I'm sure Mary would recall what city she birthed the Savior in.

4. Jews expected the Messiah to come from Bethlehem (Micah 5:2) but John's [G]ospel specifically remarks that he was born in Galilee and not Bethlehem.

No. John’s Gospel specifically remarks that some people in the crowd didn’t believe Jesus was the Messiah, because they didn’t think He was from Bethlehem (John 7:42). Neither Jesus nor John endorses this error.

In fact, in context, it doesn’t even make sense to say that John thinks the crowd is right here. Are we to understand that John, whose Gospel is written last, and was written that we might believe in Christ (John 20:30-31) just mentioned in passing, “Oh, by the way, this isn’t the Messiah promised in Scripture”?

5. To fix this detail Matthew and Luke handle the problem differently and have him getting there by different routes. Matthew has Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem all along, moving to Nazareth long after the birth of Jesus. Luke, by contrast, acknowledges that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth before Jesus was born.

It doesn’t work to say that Matthew and Mark are trying to fix a problem in John’s Gospel, since his Gospel wasn’t written yet. And it’s not true that Matthew “has Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem all along.” All we know is that at the time Jesus was conceived, Mary and Joseph did not yet live together, but that Joseph took her into his home thereafter (Matthew 1:24). No details on whether that was in Nazareth or Bethlehem. The first time the two are mentioned in Bethlehem is Matthew 2:1, at the time of Jesus’ birth.

6. Luke says that Caesar Augustus decreed a census and everyone had to go 'to his own city'. Joseph was of the house of David and therefore had to go to Bethlehem. This seems odd because why would the Romans require Joseph to go to the city where David lived a millennium earlier?

When it says he’s of the “house of David,” it’s explaining who his family is. Namely, they’re the direct descendants of David, who was from Bethlehem.  Many of these descendants probably still lived near their ancestral home.  The world was somewhat less transient then, and being the descendant of an important person can tie you to the area a bit more.  For example, you can still find some descendants of the Pilgrims living in Boston.  So St. Joseph was almost certainly from Bethlehem, which explains why they're going back there.

7. Moreover, the census decreed by Caesar Augustus wasn't made until AD 6, long after Herod's death. Why the glaring contradictions?

I don’t know where Nick got that information, but it’s mistaken.

8. Shouldn't that throw up a red flag that Matthew traces Joseph's decent from King David via 28 intermediate generations, while Luke has 41 generations?

No. Abraham is also referred to as the “father” of various people in the New Testament. It’s a common Semitism: “brother” could mean cousin or nephew, “father” could mean great-great-great grandfather, etc. Matthew highlights some of the big names, choosing fourteen (seven twice) for each epoch of Jewish history. He even says as much: “fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah” (Matthew 1:17). Luke goes into more depth.

9. Could it not be possible that these two different views were a desperate attempt to fulfill the prophecy of Micah, while tactlessly mentioning events that historians are capable of independently checking?

Flight to Egypt, Giotto (14th c.)

Is it possible? Sure, if one denies Scriptural inspiration. Is it likely? No.  After all, if Jesus were simply a myth, why not just make Him from Bethlehem?  And why would John purposely undermine the Infancy Narratives of Matthew and Luke, if he's writing to encourage faith in Christ?  This explanation of the facts presented in the Gospel is incredibly convoluted.

Taking the account at face value, on the other hand, works seamlessly.   Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth, but moved back to Joseph's hometown of Bethlehem during the census enrollment.  They fled Israel during Herod's persecution, but returned after his death, settled in Nazareth.  I imagine that plenty of people reading this can relate: growing up in one city, moving to the other as an adult, perhaps moving back and forth a couple times throughout adulthood, particularly when it comes time to start a family.  I'd say that this version -- that is, that the Gospel writers aren't lying -- rings truer on a number of levels than the accounts that seek to write this off as a conspiracy.