WHERE WE ARE

Most of the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew were borrowed from the earlier Gospel of Mark. In Part 1 of this series, I provided some general reasons why we should doubt the historical reliability of any changes or additions to the stories about Jesus made by the author of the Gospel of Matthew to the stories about Jesus that came from the Gospel of Mark.

One of the biggest and most obvious additions by the author of the Gospel of Matthew to the stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark is the addition of the birth story of Jesus, constituting the first two chapters of the Gospel of Matthew. There is no birth story of Jesus at all in the Gospel of Mark. So, if the birth story in the Gospel of Matthew is historically dubious, then that would give us good reason to doubt the historical reliability of any other additions or changes to the stories about Jesus that the author of the Gospel of Matthew makes to the stories about Jesus borrowed from the Gospel of Mark.

In Part 2 of this series, I pointed out that Jesus scholars view the birth story of Jesus in the first two chapters of the Gospel of Matthew as being historically dubious. I also gave reasons for viewing the genealogy at the beginning of the birth story in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 1:1-17) as being historically dubious, and I gave reasons for viewing the story of the alleged pregnancy of the virgin in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 1:18-25) as also being historically dubious.

In Part 3 of this series, I provided reasons for viewing the part of the birth story concerning the visit of the Magi in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 2:1-12) as also being historically dubious.

In this current post, I will provide reasons for viewing the rest of the birth story (i.e. the escape to Egypt, the massacre of the infants, and the return from Egypt) in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 2:13-23) as being historically dubious.

THE ESCAPE TO EGYPT (MATTHEW 2:13-15) IS DUBIOUS

According to the Gospel of Matthew, Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt with the infant Jesus to prevent Jesus from being killed by King Herod:

13 Now after they had left, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” 14 Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt 15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, “Out of Egypt I have called my son.”

Matthew 2:13-15, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

There are several good reasons to doubt the historicity of this part of the birth story in the Gospel of Matthew:

• The birth story in the Gospel of Luke says NOTHING about Joseph having any divine dream warnings
• The divine dream warnings of “Joseph” are likely derived from the OT stories of the divine dream warnings of “Joseph” the son of Jacob (Genesis chapters 37 to 45)
• The birth story in the Gospel of Luke says NOTHING about Joseph and Mary taking the infant Jesus to Egypt (instead they move back to their home in Nazareth)
• The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John say NOTHING about Joseph, Mary, or Jesus having ever lived in Egypt
• The idea of a King seeking to kill a child who might one day become a rival for his throne, but the child escapes from the King, is a common literary trope*
• The author of the Gospel of Matthew appears to be borrowing from two OT stories here
• The author of Matthew quotes another alleged OT prophecy about the Messiah leaving Egypt, suggesting that this story is an example of prophecy historicized

This is again, historical information that could plausibly come only from Joseph or Mary, but Joseph probably died before Jesus began his ministry, and Mary would have died long before the Gospel of Matthew was written (around 85 CE), so any stories about this alleged flight to Egypt available to the author of the Gospel of Matthew would have been second or third-hand hearsay, at best.

There are a couple of Old Testament passages that appear to have suggested the idea of the appearance of a star as a warning to a king of a potential rival, and the escape to another country as a solution to a King’s attempt to kill a potential future rival. First, the Old Testament story of an astrological warning of a future rival to a king:

Balaam, like the stargazers in the Jewish and Christian birth legends, is from Mesopotamia, “from the east” (the phrases in Num. 22:7 LXX and Matt. 2:1 are identical–ap anatolon). A well-known astrologer and diviner of omens, he has been summoned by Balak, king of Moab, who fears the Israelites, recent intruders into his realm. In this as in all the stories descended from it, the king and astrologers consult together concerning the newcomers into the realm who threaten the ruler… . In all the stories the astrologers point to a special star, symbol of the arrival of the new force… . Says Balaam, “A star shall rise [anatelei astron] out of Jacob, a man shall spring out of Israel and shall crush the princes of Moab” (Num. 24:17 LXX). The astrologers in Matthew likewise point to a star: “We observed the rising of his star (ton astera en te anotole–Matt. 2:2).

Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms, p.56

Second, the Old Testament story of a future leader escaping from a King’s attempt to kill the potential rival, by fleeing the country:

Indeed, the story of Moses in the Septuagint provided Matthew with a direct verbal source for his story of the flight to Egypt. As Pharoh wants to kill Moses, who then flees the country, so Herod wants to kill Jesus, who is then carried away by his parents. After a period of hiding for the hero in both stories, the wicked king dies:

“And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian, ‘Go, depart into Egypt, for all that sought thy life are dead‘ (tethnekasi gar pantes hoi zetountes sou ten psychen–Ex. 4:19 LXX).

“When Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, ‘Rise, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who have sought the child’s life are dead‘”(tethnekasin gar hoi zetountes ten psychen tou paidiou–Matt. 2:20).

Gospel Fictions by Randal Helms, p.56-57

The astrological warning to a king of a potential future rival, the king seeking the death of a potential rival, and the future leader or rival fleeing to another country to avoid being killed by a king who is trying to eliminate the potential rival, and the return of the rival when the king has died are all present in stories found in the Old Testament. Plus, the author of the Gospel of Matthew appears to have even borrowed some of the words and phrases used in the Greek translation (in the Septuagint) of those Old Testament stories.

THE MASSACRE OF THE INFANTS (MATTHEW 2:16-18) IS DUBIOUS

According to the Gospel of Matthew, after Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt with the infant Jesus, Herod’s soldiers (or assassins) slaughtered infants and babies in and around Bethlehem:

16 When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the magi. 17 Then what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:

18 “A voice was heard in Ramah,
wailing and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be consoled, because they are no more.”

Matthew 2:16-18, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

There are several good reasons to doubt the historicity of this part of the birth story in the Gospel of Matthew:

• The Gospel of Luke says NOTHING about King Herod ordering the slaughter of babies in and around Bethlehem
• Other than the Gospel of Matthew the NT says NOTHING about King Herod ordering the slaughter of babies in and around Bethlehem
• Historical writings outside of the NT say NOTHING about King Herod ordering the slaughter of babies in and around Bethlehem
• The idea of a King seeking to kill a child who might one day become a rival for his throne, but the child escapes from the King, is a common literary trope*
• The author of the Gospel of Matthew appears to be borrowing from two OT stories here
• The author of the Gospel of Matthew quotes an alleged prophecy from the OT about the slaughter of babies in Bethlehem, suggesting that this part of the story is an example of prophecy historicized

This story also raises the problem of evil in a stark way: Why would a perfectly good and loving God warn Mary and Joseph about the coming slaughter of babies but NOT warn any other parents of babies in and around Bethlehem? Such a cold-hearted deity is NOT worthy of worship (thus this part of the birth story in the Gospel of Matthew contradicts basic Christian theology).

THE RETURN FROM EGYPT (MATTHEW 2:19-23) IS DUBIOUS

According to the Gospel of Matthew, after King Herod died, Joseph and Mary returned to Palestine, and settled in Nazareth in the district of Galilee:

19 When Herod died, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, 20 “Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child’s life are dead.” 21 Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother, and went to the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee. 23 There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He will be called a Nazarene.”

Matthew 2:19-23, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

There are several good reasons to doubt the historicity of this part of the birth story in the Gospel of Matthew:

• The Gospel of Luke says NOTHING about Joseph and Mary moving to Nazareth after the death of King Herod; instead, it indicates that Joseph and Mary had lived in Nazareth before traveling to Bethlehem and that they returned to their home in Nazareth after Jesus was born
• The Gospel of Luke says NOTHING about Joseph having any divine dream warnings
• The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John say NOTHING about Joseph having any divine dream warnings
• The divine dream warnings of “Joseph” are likely derived from the OT stories of the divine dream warnings of “Joseph” the son of Jacob (Genesis chapters 37 to 45)
• Another son of King Herod the Great was ruling over Galilee (Herod Antipas) and so Joseph had just as much reason to avoid moving to Galilee as he had to avoid moving to Judea (Joseph’s choice of Galilee over Judea was illogical)

The author of the Gospel of Matthew once again quotes an alleged prophecy from the Old Testament, that predicts the Messiah will be from Nazareth. However, it is unlikely that this is an example of prophecy historicized because all four Gospels clearly show that Jesus was generally viewed as being from Nazareth. So, the story about the alleged move of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus from Egypt to Nazareth in Palestine was necessary with or without the OT prophecy.

There is actually no OT passage like what the author of the Gospel of Matthew “quotes”, so this just adds to the lack of credibility of this author. He cannot manage to correctly quote the Old Testament but makes up (or mangles) passages from the Old Testament just so he can have Jesus fulfill another alleged prophecy.

The author of the Gospel of Matthew mistranslated a passage from Isaiah as talking about a “virgin” when it was actually talking about a young woman, and he altered a passage from Micah to make it seem to be predicting that the Messiah would be born in the TOWN of Bethlehem Ephrathah when the passage clearly indicates that the Messiah would be “from” the CLAN of Bethlehem Ephrathah. The alleged prophecy in Hosea “Out of Egypt I called my son” was clearly a reference to the nation of Israel, not a reference to a future Messiah or savior of the Israelites:

When Israel was a child, I loved him,
    and out of Egypt I called my son.

Hosea 1:1, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (emphasis added)

These examples of mistranslation, misinterpretation, and alteration of OT passages suggest a lack of intellectual integrity and honesty, and the presence of a strong theological bias, a bias that might well lead the author of the Gospel of Matthew to ignore the lack of historical evidence for his claims about the birth of Jesus, or even to ignore historical evidence against his claims about the birth of Jesus.

CONCLUSION

There are several good reasons to doubt the historicity and historical reliability of each of the three short sections of “the rest of the birth story” (i.e. the escape to Egypt, the massacre of the infants, and the return from Egypt) in Chapter 2 of the Gospel of Matthew, so it is reasonable to conclude that the rest of the birth story (i.e. Matthew 2:13-23) is DUBIOUS.

In Part 3 of this series, we saw that there are good reasons to believe that the “visit of the Magi” (Matthew 2:1-13) part of the birth story in the Gospel of Matthew is DUBIOUS.

In Part 2 of this series, we saw there are good reasons to believe that the alleged genealogy of Jesus at the beginning of the birth story in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 1:1-17) is DUBIOUS and there are good reasons to believe the story of the alleged pregnancy of the virgin in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 1:18-25) is also DUBIOUS.

In short, there are good reasons for believing that each one of the six sections of the story of the birth of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew is historically DUBIOUS:

• Jesus’ Genealogy-> DUBIOUS
• The Pregnancy of the Virgin -> DUBIOUS
• The Visit of the Magi -> DUBIOUS
• The Escape to Egypt -> DUBIOUS
• The Massacre of the Infants -> DUBIOUS
• The Return from Egypt -> DUBIOUS

Furthermore, as mentioned in Part 2 of this series, Jesus scholars view the birth story of Jesus in the first two chapters of the Gospel of Matthew as being historically dubious.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the birth story of Jesus provided in the first two chapters of the Gospel of Matthew is completely dubious and historically unreliable.

=========================

*NOTE:

The two-stage progression of the story, which allows the child Jesus to escape, resembles the typical folkloristic legend in which a royal child escapes attempts on his life only to return and rule in power.[73]

73. The list to whom this pattern was applied includes not only mythological and legendary figures, such as Apollo, Romulus and Remus, and Hercules, but also historical ones, such as Cyrus, John the Baptist (not in the New Testament, but in later Christian legends, cf. Protevangelium of James 22-23), Augustus, and, of course, Moses.

The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume VIII, “The Gospel of Matthew” by M. Eugene Boring, p.146