Lugubert

I read "a" son, not "your firstborn." And not efter resurrection either. Try again.

andy5

Going back over this though, what The Evil One posted, it seems at some part some deceit would have to come in-if the skeptics argument is that Matthew found this bit about Bethlehem-Ephrathah and then said he was born in bethelehem, for example, and the bit about the broken bone and the drinking on the cross, we're assuming some creative writing was done at some point for some reason. There are also things that while they to me smack of errors, they also make one think about this same subject-the bit about he shall be a Nazarene-usually thought to be misquoting the one about Samson saying he shall be a Nazarite, yet obviously by the time those gospels were written the baptism ritual must've already been part of Christianity, so while it seems like the Nazarene thing would have been written in as a mistake, it seems as though the other one would have to be true, or something like that. Bottom line is I know we have direct differences among the gospels and so the logical answer is that there's human fallibility here, not God at work, yet again it is hard to picture say Luke looking at Mark's gospel as he writes, changing certain phrases just for kicks and making other things they way he prefers them.

Dreadnought

It is hard to imagine that with the present day status of the gospels as part of "the holy bible". The question is what status did the gospel of Mark have back then? Luke had the gospel of Mark and he also had Q as a source. Presumably he was also part of a christian community that had it's own traditions which may have been different both from Mark and Q. I find it obvious that neither Matthew or Luke ever thought their work would be put alongside Mark. I think both of them were trying to write a replacement for it.

The Evil One

I don't see Matthew as being motivated by deceit. He is doing what any historical novelist does, which is putting flesh and skin on the bare-bone "facts" as far as he was aware them, to make a better story and also to make certain thematic points.

EG the slaughter of the innocents. This is a bit of tall-tale-telling that ratchets up the thrills in Matthew's version of the nativity but it also makes a serious point which is, Jesus is a new Moses. Matthew didn't seriously believe that Herod killed all the children in Bethlehem, but he did believe that Jesus was a new Moses, and Herod's attempt to kill him in the cradle is Matthew's way of conveying this point to an audience (admittedly, the flight to Egypt and associated faked OT prophecy are a bit heavy-handed; the point was made without those extra flourishes!). Putting myself in his shoes, I think he wouldn't necessarily have expected everyone to take the slaughter as fact.

Reason being, midrash was a known genre, just like the historical novel is today. You wouldn't assume that the author of a historical novel is trying to deceive and you shouldn't assume that an author back then who used midrash was trying to deceive.

All in all, way I see it, Matthew was a fabulist, not a liar.



[PS re Bethlehem - it doesn't take a lie to come up with this. The thought process is very easy. It goes like this:

• Joe First-Century Christian believes Jesus was the Messiah.
• Joe First-Century Christian believes the OT prophecies of the Messiah are correct.
• One day, Joe notices a prophecy in the OT which seems to say the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.
• Well, this therefore must have happened. It's in the Scripture, isn't it!
• Therefore Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
• "Wow!" thinks Joe First-Century Christian. "I never knew that! Hey, Matthew, you'll never guess what. Jesus was born in Bethlehem! Scripture says so!"
• "Wow really? I must stick that in my gospel when I get round to writing! Everyone thinks he came from Nazareth, so this'll shock 'em!"

Etc etc. Now obviously that's crude and vastly oversimplified to make the point, but I don't think that, conceptually speaking, we need to resort to intentional deceit to explain how a belief that Jesus was born in Bethlehem could get started, leading both Matthew and Luke further down the line to come up with (separate, different) complicated mechanisms to reconcile Bethlehem and Nazareth.]
[end extremely long ps.....]

Roger Pearse

There are quite a number of implied presumptions here, not least about how God 'must' do things.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Jayhawker Soule

How might this story have been understood in cultures where the sacrifice of the first-born was common? I've always viewed the narrative as transitional away from child sacrifice and, as such, relatively enlightened/progressive lore.

WishboneDawn

How vacant a response.

Frankly, the plainly obvious tends to be predictable.

WishboneDawn

I like your thinking. I've tended to think that if there's an account that closest to whatever facts there may be it was likely Mark. Once you're into the other gospels, and even with Mark, it's good to remember that the authors were being informed by their community and it's traditions. Matthew seems to be writing for Jews and Jewish-Christians.

I just think it's so much more interesting when you get over the God-wrote-it stuff and start delving into the humans that wrote it, who they wrote it for and how different peoples have interpreted it.

WishboneDawn

Thank you!

I tend to see a lot of people talk about the horror of the story but if we take a look at when it was written then I think you're bang on. When it was first being told there were likely still child sacrifices in cultures around the Hebrews and the Hebrews probably weren't too far removed from it themselves. It must have shaken up some outsiders to hear a story about another people's god who didn't want them to kill their children.

It's my favourite Hebrew story. Prometheus is my favourite greek one. I think I have a thing for the ones that have a huge element of horror.

Roger Pearse

When you get to fill in your first tax return, then, you'll be one of the few who enjoys it...