Was Jesus's Flight to Egypt in the same time period as the Presentation?

[Paul_Esch]

In Mt 2:13-14 we read: When they (magi) 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.” Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed for Egypt.

However, in Lk:2:21-22 we read: When eight days were completed for his circumcision, he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. When the days were completed for their purification 9 according to the law of Moses, they took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.

How could the Holy family flee to Egypt soon after the birth of our Lord and at the same time be in Jerusalem 8 days after his birth? Was Jesus’s Flight to Egypt in the same time period as the Presentation?

 

[Eucharisted]

The magi visited Jesus when he was around two years old.

 

[aicirt]

Good thinking! Forgot the Magi didn’t come for almost two years.

Read your conversion story. Beautiful. You are truly blessed.

How old were you when you were baptized?

 

[patg]

How could the Holy family flee to Egypt soon after the birth of our Lord and at the same time be in Jerusalem 8 days after his birth? Was Jesus’s Flight to Egypt in the same time period as the Presentation?

It is quite valid to believe that this is a symbolic story created by Matthew to create the image of Jesus as the new Moses.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

It is quite valid to believe that this is a symbolic story created by Matthew to create the image of Jesus as the new Moses.

I would rather believe the truth than what is “valid” to believe. I don’t believe St. Matthew lied about a sojourn that never happened to foist his image of Jesus as the new Moses upon innocent unsuspecting believers. That Jesus was a new Moses is attested to by innumerable REAL events without having to make some up. Beside that, there were plenty of Apostles and disciples around when Mathhew’s Gospel was circulating, that would have known if this story was true or not (such as St. John the Apostle and Our Blessed Mother Mary) There would have been need for a conspiracy of lies to uphold Matthew’s Gospel if it wasn’t true. That is not how the Apostles operated. That is too cynical a view in my opinion. I also don’t believe the Holy Spirit ever inspired the evangelists to “fudge” the truth for good effects. The Truth, which is reality, was witnessed to by the Evangelists, as their mission in doing the will of God.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Good thinking! Forgot the Magi didn’t come for almost two years.

There is no Scriptural reason to believe this, other than Herod’s command to slaughter the male children of 2 yrs. or younger. In fact, would Herod have specified 2 yrs. if the Magi had kept Herod waiting 2 yrs? Of course not. Herod would want to be sure. All he knew was that a child was born and that it took the Magi, x number of days to reach Jerusalem, and another x number of days during which he awaited word from them. Now since Herod did not know exactly when the child was born, he would have added at least a year or more to account for that too. Therefore the Magi could have easily arrived in Bethlehem well within the first few months.

 

[patg]

I would rather believe the truth than what is “valid” to believe.

So you don’t accept that fiction is a valid vehicle for revelation or that truth can be taught perfectly well using fiction? You do know that fiction is not a synonym for lying?

Fortunately the church does accept this.

I don’t believe St. Matthew lied about a sojourn that never happened to foist his image of Jesus as the new Moses upon innocent unsuspecting believers.

You don’t have to believe that. There is no Church teaching requiring you to believe either side just as their is no requirement that the authors of the gospels had to refrain from symbolic imagery.

Jes was a new Moses is attested to by innumerable REAL events without having to make some up.

Matthew created a symbolic story that resonated with his Jewish readers and taught them who Matthew believed Jesus was. There is no reason or requirement to also assume that it literally happened.

there were plenty of Apostles and disciples around when Mathhew’s Gospel was circulating, that would have known if this story was true or not (such as St. John the Apostle and Our Blessed Mother Mary)

I imagine they would understand the symbolic imagery and not try to assume it was all to be taken literalistically as some here do. They might even have understood that truth is not dependent on literary form.

There would have been need for a conspiracy of lies to uphold Matthew’s Gospel if it wasn’t true.

Nobody is saying it isn’t the truth but it can be a serious misunderstanding to equate truth only with literalism. Again, fiction is not a synonym for lying. Fiction is often the best way to clearly express a truth.

That is not how the Apostles operated. That is too cynical a view in my opinion. I also don’t believe the Holy Spirit ever inspired the evangelists to “fudge” the truth for good effects. The Truth, which is reality, was witnessed to by the Evangelists, as their mission in doing the will of God.

The holy spirit inspired the telling of the truth and the authors expressed that truth using allegory, symbolism, fictional infancy narratives, poetry, history, and a number of other valid literary forms. As Dei Verbum clearly states:

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.

Infancy Narratives are a standard literary form of the culture of the time. They were assumed to be fictional but were commonly used to express truths about significant individuals.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

patg:

So you don’t accept that fiction is a valid vehicle for revelation or that truth can be taught perfectly well using fiction?

False conclusion. You seem to forget that the Gospels are a Biblical literary device. It’s the witness of the Apostles and their immediate disciples. It’s not their own fictional accounts. These are eye-witness accounts. That is the whole reason they are the Gospels! They are the “GOOD NEWS.” Not the “Good Fables” of creative writers.

 

[patg]

False conclusion. You seem to forget that the Gospels are a Biblical literary device. It’s the witness of the Apostles and their immediate disciples. It’s not their own fictional accounts. These are eye-witness accounts. That is the whole reason they are the Gospels! They are the “GOOD NEWS.” Not the “Good Fables” of creative writers.

False conclusion. They are not “accounts” at all and certainly not eyewitness accounts. They are records of the teachings of the discipples as to who Jesus was and what he taught, I recommend you read the ***Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels ***by the PBC and Pope Paul VI and the sections of Dei Verbum dealing with literary forms.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

False conclusion. They are not “accounts” at all and certainly not eyewitness accounts. They are records of the teachings of the discipples as to who Jesus was and what he taught, I recommend you read the ***Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels ***by the PBC and Pope Paul VI and the sections of Dei Verbum dealing with literary forms.

St Matthew was not an eye-witness? St. John was not an eye-witness?

I suggest you read Pope Benedict XVI’s new book Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Eucharisted]

Good thinking! Forgot the Magi didn’t come for almost two years.

Read your conversion story. Beautiful. You are truly blessed.

How old were you when you were baptized?

I think 14 or 15. Sorry, bad memory.

 

[Eucharisted]

St Matthew was not an eye-witness? St. John was not an eye-witness?

I suggest you read Pope Benedict XVI’s new book Jesus of Nazareth.

His book is awesome!

 

[DaveBj]

Actually, the presentation was 32 days after the circumcision, or 40 days after the birth. Check out the 12th chapter of Leviticus, and notice that Luke reports that they did the presentation after the days had been completed according to the Law.

The idea that the shepherds and the Magi followed in quick succession through the manger scene, and then that the Holy Family immediately hit the road for Egypt is a myth. They spent enough time in Bethlehem to move from the manger area to a house, and for Jesus to grow from being an infant to being a young child.

DaveBj

 

[patg]

St Matthew was not an eye-witness? St. John was not an eye-witness?

Yes, they were both eyewitnesses. Of course, there is no proof or teaching that they were the authors of the gospels to which their names were attached.

I suggest you read Pope Benedict XVI’s new book Jesus of Nazareth.

I re-suggest that you read the *Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels *and the notes on it by the translator Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J.

 

[puzzleannie]

the Gospel specifies the time for the Presentation, 40 days after birth, but not of the visit of the magi and and flight into Egypt, so anytime after the visit to Jerusalem and return to Bethlehem (hopefully to better quarters by the time crowds were leaving the town) up until 2 years, the time period Herod felt compelled to kill the children, we are free to speculate. No, Matthew and John and Luke were not eyewitnesses to the events of the infancy narratives, but we know John and Matthew had ample opportunity to hear of these from Mary and Jesus himself, and that among the disciples were most likely those whose families had known His family. These first two of course have the events of Christ’s adult life and mission first hand as eye-witnesses, but not independently witnesses of every single event. For instance only John was at the cross and the transfiguration (among the gospel writers). Luke, as he and tradition tell us, actually interviewed Mary and got details only she could reveal, as well as tracking down all other eyewitness accounts from every source he could locate. John Mark is probably a companion to Peter as tradition holds, or at least to other apostles and has is information close at hand as well.

Bear in mind the story of the flight into Egypt is as much about Joseph’s attentiveness to God’s commands and both parent’s habit of humble obedience and absolute trust in God, as it is about the actions of others in the story, the magi and Herod, the soldiers etc.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

False conclusion. They are not “accounts” at all and certainly not eyewitness accounts. They are records of the teachings of the discipples as to who Jesus was and what he taught, I recommend you read the ***Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels ***by the PBC and Pope Paul VI and the sections of Dei Verbum dealing with literary forms.

From Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels:

But let him be wary, because scarcely admissible philosophical and theological principles have often come to be mixed with this method, which not uncommonly have vitiated the method itself as well as the conclusions in the literary area. For some proponents of this method have been led astray by the prejudiced views of rationalism. They refuse to admit the existence of a supernatural order and the intervention of a personal God in the world through strict revelation, and the possibility and existence of miracles and prophecies. Others begin with a false idea of faith, as if it had nothing to do with historical truth–or rather were incompatible with it. **Others deny the historical value and nature of the documents of revelation almost a priori. ****Finally, others make light of the authority of the apostles as witnesses to Christ, and of their task and influence in the primitive community, extolling rather the creative power of that community. **All such views are not only opposed to Catholic doctrine, but are also devoid of scientific basis and alien to the correct principles of historical method.