The Jerusalem Council & Binding Universal Decisions
Neither Matthew nor Luke claim that the shepherds or the wise men (magi) were the “first” to witness the baby Jesus. That’s an invention that atheists and other Bible skeptics somehow came up with (who knows how?). And this is a key factor in determining whether an alleged “contradiction” is present. Let me elaborate a bit if I may. If Matthew had said that the wise men were the “first” to visit baby Jesus and Luke said that the shepherds were the ‘first” to do so, then that would have been a true, clear contradiction. But of course neither account says any such thing. This is so obvious that even the famous agnostic and Bible skeptic Bart Ehrman agrees:\
Of course some of the differences are simply … differences, not “contradictions.” As an obvious example, the fact that Luke mentions the shepherds but not the magi (wise men) and that Matthew mentions the magi but not the shepherds is not a contradiction. If both groups visited the infant Jesus, then Luke mentioned one group and Matthew the other: no contradiction. (Ehrman on the Nativity, 10-29-13)
Right after Luke reports that Mary gave birth to Jesus (Lk 2:7), it’s reported that angels inform the shepherds of the birth of Jesus on that very night (Lk 2:8-14). Then the shepherds determined to go see baby Jesus, and indeed did so (Lk 2:15-16). We know that this was the night of Jesus’ birth, complete with his lying in the famous “manger” (Lk 2:7). Nothing is said about their being the first visitors. They may have been, but we can’t know for sure from the text. They could have been the first or the fifth, or the only ones on that night. From the text we can’t determine those things. And there is no imaginary obligation for a text to mention any or all other visitors too. All we know for sure is that they visited shortly after He was born.
The wise men (Mt 2:1-11) didn’t visit on the night of Jesus’ birth. Matthew 2:1 (RSV) reads: “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, . . . ” Admittedly, this sounds at first glance as if they visited on the night He was born. But many Bible translations bring out more clearly the meaning: that the incidents about to be recorded were some time after Jesus’ birth, not at the time of His birth. They use phrases like "After Jesus was born" (NASB / NIV / NKJV, NRSV), "After his birth" (NEB / REB), "Jesus having been born" (Wuest), etc.
What we do know for sure from the Bible is that when the magi stopped by, Jesus was a toddler. The word for child in Matthew 2:8-9 is paidion (Strong’s word #3813): defined as “a young child . . . properly, a child under training; the diminutive form of 3816 / país (“child”). . . . implies a younger child (perhaps seven years old or younger). Some scholars apply 3816 (país) to a son or daughter up to 20 years old.”
“Babe” on the other hand (Lk 2:12, 16 in RSV and KJV) is Strong’s word #1025, brephos: which means: “an unborn or a newborn child” and is used of children in the womb in Luke 1:41, 44. In Luke 2, it’s the day of Jesus’ birth (Lk 2:7, 11). So the use of “babe” (2:12, 16) and “child” (2:17) in English (RSV) obviously includes the meaning here of “newborn.” Commentators generally believe He was two years old or younger when the wise men visited, but in any event, not a newborn.
The magi visit a “house” (Mt 2:11), not a baby in a “manger” (Lk 2:7, 12, 16), in a place which was, in fact, a cave (I’ve been there). There are no angels (Lk 2:9-10, 13-15), shepherds (Lk 2:8, 15-18), or animals are in sight. The star of Bethlehem is a factor in Matthew’s account only. Luke never mentions it. The picture of the star of Bethlehem shining down on baby Jesus (surprisingly enough) is not biblical at all. It's much more so "Hallmark Christmas card theology." Scholars believe that Jesus was possibly as old as two years old, based on Matthew 2:16 (RSV):
Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men.
Herod felt “tricked” because they had departed the country by then (2:12-13). What he “ascertained from the wise men” was that Jesus was up to two years old. See also 2:7: “Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star appeared”. Personally, I think (based on much study of this issue) that they may have said He was a year old, and that Herod then ordered all children under two to be killed, to be sure He killed the Messiah, based on His estimated age given to him by the magi.
Since these are two completely separate events and visitations, any alleged “difficulty” or “contradiction” vanishes.
***
For much more related reading, see my Christmas web page.