Flight to Egypt

[Zzyzx]

.
Flight to Egypt

Is there verifiable evidence that:

1) Joseph, Mary, and Jesus traveled to Egypt (400+ miles) as reported in Matthew 2:13-18 ?

2) The family lived in Egypt?

3) Male children two years old and younger were killed by order of Herod?

There is a TALE that such things happened. Did they really / actually / literally happen in the real world (not just in imagination or fantasy)?

[JehovahsWitness]

The story of the Herod's massacre of the innocents was written to harken back to Pharoh's massacre of the innocents. A literary device to convey the notion that Jesus was the new Moses. Nothing more. I doubt that any corroborating physical evidence exists, or any independent historical evidence, for that matter.

No, can you prove "Herod's massacre of the innocents was written to harken back to Pharoh's massacre of the innocents. A literary device to convey the notion that Jesus was the new Moses. Nothing more"

Is that (in bold) a statement of fact or of opinion?

(I am not questioning your doubts, your doubts are your own and not debatable)







JW

[Willum]

[Replying to post 11 by JehovahsWitness]

Obviously a fact, since neither occurred.
It can be viewed two ways:
As the readers' interpretation. You are familiar with favorable interpretations?
Or, since they neither existed, as the repetitive literary motif, used in ancient literature..

[Difflugia]

The story of the Herod's massacre of the innocents was written to harken back to Pharoh's massacre of the innocents. A literary device to convey the notion that Jesus was the new Moses. Nothing more. I doubt that any corroborating physical evidence exists, or any independent historical evidence, for that matter.

No, can you prove "Herod's massacre of the innocents was written to harken back to Pharoh's massacre of the innocents. A literary device to convey the notion that Jesus was the new Moses. Nothing more"

Considering that we can't get into Matthew's head to know for sure why he wrote what he did, we do know enough of the circumstances to be reasonably certain.

First, we know that there's no record of Herod ordering the slaughter of a bunch of infants. Considering the things about Herod that Josephus did document, we can be reasonably certain that he didn't order the death of a bunch of his infant subjects.

We also know that, despite a somewhat faulty memory for scriptural details, Matthew had read at least some of the Old Testament, even if only in Greek. Considering that Matthew quotes Exodus 4:19 immediately following the slaughter of the innocents, we can be reasonably certain that Matthew knew the Moses story.

So, we are pretty sure that the slaughter of the innocents didn't actually happen. We know that the story of Moses contains a similar detail in Exodus 1:22. We are pretty sure that Matthew knew the Moses story. So the only question now is that when Matthew inserted the story about Herod killing the babies, was it as a not-so-veiled reference to Exodus or did he just think it made for a more exciting story?

We can be reasonably certain that it was the former, but I guess we'll never know for sure.

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 11 by JehovahsWitness]

Then you are saying the gospel of Mathew lies. LIES! You are right that never happened. But your precious testament says it's true AND IT FULFILLS PROPHECY! What a joke.

The writer if Mathew ,whoever that was, said the massacre by Herod fulfilled PROPHECY! Then the writer quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures. About Rachel weeping for her children. That it foretells herods killing of the kids. No it isn't about that at all. It's about the babylonian exile.

So here's another supposed fullfilled PROPHECY made by the church. And another one you will ignore huh? I accuse your book of lying and you say nothing to defend it. You realize how foolish you look right? On a debate forum and can't defend your beliefs. No lie is of the truth

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

No. In my historical estimate the events never happened. Quite honestly, as an historian, I think very little of the gospel of Matthew is reliable historically. I do enjoy reading it, for I was first a literature major, and it is a magnificent literary work. But as history it is almost more stylized than John. Indeed (and against many major scholars) I am almost inclined to take John as more historical than matthew!!

[liamconnor]

.
Flight to Egypt

Is there verifiable evidence that:

1) Joseph, Mary, and Jesus traveled to Egypt (400+ miles) as reported in Matthew 2:13-18 ?

2) The family lived in Egypt?

3) Male children two years old and younger were killed by order of Herod?

There is a TALE that such things happened. Did they really / actually / literally happen in the real world (not just in imagination or fantasy)?

Matthew is the man who said corpses shuffled along the road to Jerusalem, to say hello to their (surprised) kin. His story of a 400 mile detour to Egypt sounds like advanced science in comparison.

Yes. Matthew's gospel is highly stylized according to Old Testament patterns. Ancient biographers seemed to feel free to invent origins for their topic, origins that foreshadowed the later events to be recorded.

It is unlikely that Jesus' family ever made it to Egypt.

I think we can safely take it that infants weren't massacred.

Probably true. The entire episode was probably written as an echo of Pharaoh.

If they were then it was God's fault for carelessly allowing a divine birth in such a dangerous part of the world.

I do wonder why after being so historically on point, you have to descend into mere mockery. Now don't mistake me, I don't mind mockery. But I do mind asinine mockery: uniformed mockery. When you wrote that statement, had you thought of numerous places you knew by historical research to be quite safe for a divine birth? Were you thinking Beijing? Rome?

Or was your process: 1) this is all obviously garbage; 2) anything I say in defiance of it is therefore intelligent?

Smugness is not intelligence. It's just a form of bigotry.

The mention of Egypt and the killing of male infants is just a piece of confusion in Matthew's head - he had heard of the plagues.

Quite a bold statement. Are there no other options? Is your version (which assigns Matthew a, what, drunkard state during his entire writing process) more likely than what actual scholars surmise:

1) Matthew believed that Jesus was resurrected from crucifixion
2) Matthew believed that Jesus was the fulfillment of Israel's long hopes, as witnessed in her ancient writings
3) Matthew wrote an introduction to Jesus that put him in symbolic and narrative continuity with Israel's history, because Matthew felt it was fitting.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 16 by liamconnor]

Point of order:
Assuming miraculous events and stories ARE NOT true in not asinine, but the beginning of wisdom for any adult, who no longer accepts Santa or any other fairy tale.

To begin by dismissing Jesus, et&al, out of hand shows the strength to oppose widely accepted nonsense, and the wisdom to not accept the incredible without reasonable evidence.

[marco]

I do wonder why after being so historically on point, you have to descend into mere mockery. Now don't mistake me, I don't mind mockery. But I do mind asinine mockery: uniformed mockery. When you wrote that statement, had you thought of numerous places you knew by historical research to be quite safe for a divine birth? Were you thinking Beijing? Rome?

Or was your process: 1) this is all obviously garbage; 2) anything I say in defiance of it is therefore intelligent?

Smugness is not intelligence. It's just a form of bigotry.

Thank you for that flattering critique on my point of view, Liam. When Matthew writes nonsense, you call it "highly stylised." When I use irony, it is asinine and uninformed. My flippant observation was that, if Christ was born in an area where they were killing babies, it was maybe a tad unwise to plan a birth there. I do not for a half moment think the Almighty did plan an incarnation in Bethlehem. Ergo, my comment lacked seriousness.


In the Life of Brian film there is much garbage, if one approaches it with a literal mind. Obviously balm could not have been misheard as bomb, since this is a foolish anachronism .... to people who fail to understand satire. Though I am uneasy with the now usual charge of smugness, I am unclear as to its blood relationship with bigotry.

To summarise about the OP topic rather than my worryingly unsteady mental state, I think God had nothing to do with the travel agency through which Joseph booked his trek and so I feel, unworthily maybe, entitled to do some Gilbertian mocking of what Matthew, in his stylised way, presumes to tell us. If one laughs it is at Matthew's expense, Matthew of the walking corpses, and not at the author of the universe. I hope this clarifies things for you . As usual it is good to have your incisive dissection of how I said what what I said. One learns from one's mistakes. My best wishes to you.