Flight to Egypt?

[Allweather]

We recently noticed that Luke doesn’t mention the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt in order to escape the destruction of the innocents in Bethlehem after Jesus’ birth. Luke has him being presented in the Temple for circumcision after 8 days, while Matthew has Joseph receiving instructions from an angel to flee into Egypt, very soon after Jesus was born, seemingly so abruptly as to prevent any lingering to allow the presentation written about in Luke.

How do we reconcile these two accounts?

 

[LilyM]

We recently noticed that Luke doesn’t mention the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt in order to escape the destruction of the innocents in Bethlehem after Jesus’ birth. Luke has him being presented in the Temple for circumcision after 8 days, while Matthew has Joseph receiving instructions from an angel to flee into Egypt, very soon after Jesus was born, seemingly so abruptly as to prevent any lingering to allow the presentation written about in Luke.

How do we reconcile these two accounts?

Well, Matthew’s account says that Herod gave orders to kill all baby boys who were two years or younger. And Matthew doesn’t specify that the flight into Egypt was soon after Jesus’ birth - certainly not as soon as forty days (which would’ve been when they visited the Temple for Mary’s Purification).

My own feeling is that the Wise Men actually arrived when Jesus was at least a little older.

 

[lak611]

Well, Matthew’s account says that Herod gave orders to kill all baby boys who were two years or younger. And Matthew doesn’t specify that the flight into Egypt was soon after Jesus’ birth - certainly not as soon as forty days (which would’ve been when they visited the Temple for Mary’s Purification).

My own feeling is that the Wise Men actually arrived when Jesus was at least a little older.

That’s what we learned in my Infancy Narratives Bible study.

 

[Franciscan]

The amazing thing is that in those days they had airplanes. Did they serve peanuts on the flight?
Or was that forbidden by Pontius PILOT?

 

[Allweather]

Well, Matthew’s account says that Herod gave orders to kill all baby boys who were two years or younger. And Matthew doesn’t specify that the flight into Egypt was soon after Jesus’ birth - certainly not as soon as forty days (which would’ve been when they visited the Temple for Mary’s Purification).

My own feeling is that the Wise Men actually arrived when Jesus was at least a little older.

Matthew says in 2:12 that the Magi, having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, departed for their own country by another way. Then the next verse, 2:13, says: "When they had departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you. Herod is going to search for the child to destroy him.” And the next verse 2:14 says: “Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed for Egypt”

I guess our confusion is being caused by the temptation to compress these events into a short time frame because of their proximity to one another as Bible verses. As for the 2 yrs and younger order by Herod, I’ve always assumed that Herod gave the order that way because he didn’t want there being any mistakes made by the troops doing the slaying in their trying to figure out which ones were the newborns. Since he obviously didn’t care much for the humanity of it all, killing unnecessarily wasn’t a concern for him. But, I can see how the order could also suggest the passage of significant time between the birth and the flight into Egypt. Another source of confusion for us in the recent movie, The Nativity Story. In that rendering, Joseph and Mary are moving into Egypt within hours of the birth, which is the impression one gets from reading the Matthew account.

 

[SMHW]

I know that my teachers in Catholic school (back in the 1960s) told us that Jesus could have been as much as a year old before the magi came to visit.

I think part of the problem is that our nativity scenes frequently show that the magi are offering gifts while Jesus is still in a manger. There is no such indication in the text.

Herrod evidently used the time of the star’s appearance to figure out how old Jesus would have been. The magi’s journey to Bethleham would have taken some time after the appearance of the star.

 

[Liberian]

Another source of confusion for us in the recent movie, The Nativity Story. In that rendering, Joseph and Mary are moving into Egypt within hours of the birth, which is the impression one gets from reading the Matthew account.

Allweather,

Another clue that the visit of the Magi happened some time after the actual birth of Jesus is that Matthew mentions the Magi going into a “house” rather than visiting in the stable. My best guess is that Joseph, not wanting to travel with a newborn, had found employment and temporary lodgings in Bethlehem until Jesus was old enough to travel.

• Liberian

 

[Joe_Monahan]

See Posts 11 to 13 in this thread for a discussion of the relationship in time of the Magi’s visit to the Nativity itself.

Btw, in several of the Oriental Catholic and Orthodox Churches, today is the Feast of Saint Caspar the Magus.

Joe Monahan

 

[Angelos]

Hi people

Thanks for this thread. I have two questions related to the comparative study of the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke:

**1)**Why does an angel of the Lord command Joseph in a dream to go to Egypt rather than go to another safe place in Israel? We know that Herod’s decree brought about the massacree of the infants living in Bethlehem & in the vicinity, not in the whole Israel. (Actually, John the Baptist did not have to escape since he was away from the region where the command of the slaughter was put into practice) Was Joseph’s flight to Egypy somehow linked to Israel’s settlement in Egypt during Joseph’s time? Was this also why Joseph was called “the son of Jacob” in the genealogy?

**2)*Why can’t we see Joseph *in the account of the Magi’s visit? Why does Matthew emphasize that the Magi went and found the baby and His mother? Where was Joseph when this visitation took place? Why is he missing from the scene? In Luke, however, the shepherds go and see Joseph, Mary, and infant Jesus in Bethlehem. What is the reason for this difference?

Peace & blessings to you,
Angelos N.

 

[lak611]

Hi people

Thanks for this thread. I have two questions related to the comparative study of the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke:

**1)**Why does an angel of the Lord command Joseph in a dream to go to Egypt rather than go to another safe place in Israel? We know that Herod’s decree brought about the massacree of the infants living in Bethlehem & in the vicinity, not in the whole Israel. (Actually, John the Baptist did not have to escape since he was away from the region where the command of the slaughter was put into practice)

They went to Egypt in order that the prophecy in Hosea 11:1 would be fulfilled. Matthew 2:15 says " . . . that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, Out of Egypt I called my son.**" (Douay-Rheims Version)

 

[Liberian]

**1)**Why does an angel of the Lord command Joseph in a dream to go to Egypt rather than go to another safe place in Israel?

Angelos,

Practically speaking, it’s probably because there was no other safe place there. Herod’s long arm could reach pretty much anywhere in Israel. I can just see the village busy-body with Mary: “Where did you say you were from? Oh, I see … say, that’s quite a nice young baby you have there. He looks like he’s about … how old? Police!!!”

**2)*Why can’t we see Joseph *in the account of the Magi’s visit? Why does Matthew emphasize that the Magi went and found the baby and His mother?

For that you will have to ask Matthew.

• Liberian

 

[suburbanbanshee]

I don’t know this from my own knowledge, as I don’t know Greek. But what I heard this year was that the Greek word used for Jesus in the Magi passage was “paidion” (spelling?) which means “child, toddler, little kid” as opposed to the word for “baby” used for earlier passages. So the assumption among folks reading the Greek was that Jesus was two, three years old by the time of the Flight to Egypt.

Hope this helped!

 

[Eileen_T]

Here’s the part that puzzles me…

In Luke 2:39 it says:

"And after they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their city Nazareth.

Yet, Matthew 2:16 says:
“Then Herod perceiving that he was deluded by the wise men, was exceeding angry; and sending killed all the men children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.”

So, Jesus is born in Bethlehem, at 8 days He is presented in the Temple and the Holy Family return to Nazareth.

The Magi come looking for Him in Bethlehem and it is the children at Bethlehem that are put to the sword.

Does anyone have an answer, preferably a reference from the ECF?

 

[lak611]

Here’s the part that puzzles me…

In Luke 2:39 it says:

*"And after they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their city *Nazareth.The law and the prophets are connected in the Bible. So this could mean that they went to Jerusalem to present Jesus in the temple. Then Joseph might have gotten a job and temporary lodging in Bethlehem. Jesus might have been a year or two years old when the Magi visited. Then the Holy Family fled to Egypt to fulfill the prophecy. After the death of Herod, they settled in Nazareth which both Matthew and Luke mention.

 

[Eileen_T]

I went looking for the answer in Google and my DR Bible and found that Nazareth isn’t mentioned in the OT, and that there is no record of Nazareth outside of the NT.

Has anyone studied on this? I haven’t been challenged about this by non-Christians as yet, but no doubt it will come up some time.

 

[Angelos]

I went looking for the answer in Google and my DR Bible and found that Nazareth isn’t mentioned in the OT, and that there is no record of Nazareth outside of the NT.

Has anyone studied on this? I haven’t been challenged about this by non-Christians as yet, but no doubt it will come up some time.

Hi Eileen

I was once challenged by the same group of people that accused Matthew - or the writer of this infancy narrative - of being a liar! Regarding the puzzling association made in Matthew between Nazareth and the Old Testament, many biblical scholars have suggested linguistic solutions to this supposed problem. According to one theory, the word Nazareth sounds similar to the Hebrew word nesher for “bud”. In Isaiah 11: 1 Davidic king of the future is called “nesher”. Another theory based on the similarity of sounds/words contends that Nazareth is amazingly similar to the Hebrew nazir (meaning consecrated). In Judges 13: 5.7 Samson is called a “nazir” as the deliverer of Israel from Philistines.

Nevertheless, nowadays scholars delight in presenting another solution not derived from any similarity between Nazareth and a few Hebrew words with Messianic denotations. According to this latest theory, Matthew implied that most of the prophets described the Savior as the suffering servant of God despised by His folk. Surprisingly, John’s Gospel testifies to the common view that Nazareth was despised by the inhabitants of other towns:

John 1:45-46 Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the law, and the prophets also wrote about – Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” Nathanael replied, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”

Likewise, Jewish religious leaders did not expect the Christ to come from Galilee:
John 7:41-42 Others said, “This is the Christ!” But still others said, “No, for the Christ doesn’t come from Galilee, does he? Don’t the scriptures say that the Christ is a descendant of David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?”

This latest theory is favoured by most scholars since it points out an “oral tradition” rather than a written prophecy in the OT. This also explains why Matthew ascribed this prophecy to “many prophets” rather than a single one, trying to stress the indefinite source of the prophecy through the plural marker. (This is the only place in the Gospel where Matthew attributes a prophecy to “prophets” instead of “the prophet”.

Peace to you,
Angelos N.

 

[Angelos]

Angelos,

Practically speaking, it’s probably because there was no other safe place there. Herod’s long arm could reach pretty much anywhere in Israel. I can just see the village busy-body with Mary: “Where did you say you were from? Oh, I see … say, that’s quite a nice young baby you have there. He looks like he’s about … how old? Police!!!”-

Nice supposition, but this fails to explain how come John the Baptist - who was a little child at that time, being only six months older than Jesus - survived the massacre? The Gospel of Matthew makes it clear that Herod’s royal decree to kill the infants was confined to Bethlehem & the surrounding towns, making all the other places safe in Israel.

For that you will have to ask Matthew.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I feel obliged to ask this question to the people here in the forum instead of bothering Matthew the Evangelist in the first place. I’ll wait a little more, and I’ll pose the same question to Matthew if I can get no satisfactory answer.

Peace to you,
Angelos N.

 

[axolotl]

Nice supposition, but this fails to explain how come John the Baptist - who was a little child at that time, being only six months older than Jesus - survived the massacre?

There’s a piece of apocrypha on it, but it seems to neglect the flight to Egypt. Still interesting though.

1. And when Herod knew that he had been mocked by the Magi, in a rage he sent murderers, saying to them: Slay the children from two years old and under. And Mary, having heard that the children were being killed, was afraid, and took the infant and swaddled Him, and put Him into an ox-stall. And Elizabeth, having heard that they were searching for John, took him and went up into the hill-country, and kept looking where to conceal him. And there was no place of concealment. And Elizabeth, groaning with a loud voice, says: O mountain of God, receive mother and child. And immediately the mountain was cleft, and received her. And a light shone about them, for an angel of the Lord was with them, watching over them.
2. And Herod searched for John, and sent officers to Zacharias, saying: Where have you hid your son? And he, answering, said to them: I am the servant of God in holy things, and I sit constantly in the temple of the Lord: I do not know where my son is. And the officers went away, and reported all these things to Herod. And Herod was enraged, and said: His son is destined to be king over Israel. And he sent to him again, saying: Tell the truth; where is your son? for you know that your life is in my hand. And Zacharias said: I am God’s martyr, if you shed my blood; for the Lord will receive my spirit, because you shed innocent blood at the vestibule of the temple of the Lord. And Zacharias was murdered about daybreak. And the sons of Israel did not know that he had been murdered.

newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm

 

[Angelos]

Hi axolotl

Thanks for the quotation. I believe that this apocryphal Gospel was written after the Canonical Gospels in order to provide answers for the questions some believers/disbelievers derived from the material in Matthew & Luke. I also presume that the real reason underlying the addition of infant John’s story into the account of the Holy Family’s flight to Egypt through this apocryphal text was the fake author’s aim to reconcile the infancy narratives in Matthew & Luke by making John & Jesus similar in terms of surviving the massacree. Nonetheless, Lord’s infancy narrative in Matthew excludes John the Baptist from the scene, focusing on similarities between baby Moses and baby Jesus, Israel & Jesus (going to & returning from Egypt ), and Babylonian captivity & the massacree in Jesus’ time.

Matthew deliberately leaves John out of the story because John the Baptist is not directly related to the prophets and promises of the Old Testament. Luke, however, relates Jesus’ birth & infancy in close association with His baptism & manifestation to Israel. Hence John prepares the way for the Lord’s birth in the womb of his mother as well as for the Lord’s ministry through baptism in the wilderness .

Peace to you,
Angelos N.

P.S. I am still waiting for a response to my previous question (why is Joseph missing from the account of Magi’s visit?). If no one can answer this question, I’ll have to resort to Matthew Himself very soon!

 

[Eileen_T]

Luke has Zachery and Elizabeth living in the hill country in “a city of Juda”. So John the Baptist would probably have been nowhere near Bethlehem at the time of the massacre.

John’s lineage has him descended from Aaron but says nothing about being of the House of David.

Bethlehem was the town founded for the descendents of David and the census brought together those who had gone to live elsewhere. This would have been an ideal time for Herod to kill off a large number of those who claimed David’s ancestry in one blow.