Jesus flight to Egypt.
Matthew 2:13-24 describes how Joseph received a dream, in which an angel warned him to flee to Egypt, to avoid Herod harming infant Jesus: we learn Herod killed all male infants in Bethlehem under the age of two. Meanwhile, we learn that the family safely stayed in Egypt until Herod’s death (ca. 4 BC) , which Joseph learned about in a dream, and that it was safe( r) to return home. In verse 22, we learn that Herod’s son, Herod Archelaus now reigned the area. Herod Archelaus ruled for about 10 years until he was banished, replaced by Quirinus, circa 6 AD ( see Luke 2:2). As a result of fearing Herods son, Joseph took a wide birth, settling in Nazareth. From there, Matthew begins the story of John the Baptist, introducing an adult Jesus from Galilee.
Luke tells a completely different story. His birth was not merely announced with a star (per Matthew) but heavenly hosts appearing (Luke 2:14). Jesus was circumcised on the 8th day. When Mary’s postpartum purification was complete, probably 33 days (Levictus 12), both she and Joseph brought Jesus to Jerusalem for anointing, to present him to the Lord (Luke 2:22), and offer a sacrifice per Law ( Luke 2:23, Levictus 12). At the temple they met Simeon who praised infant Jesus, and also the prophetess Anna, who did likewise. Luke 2:39 indicates that his parents properly presented him before God ( this is exactly the same concept of blessing infants, and infant baptism in Christian churches), the family returned to Nazareth, where the child grew ( verse 40). Next, in verses 41 and 42, we are told of Jesus in the Temple, age 12, amazing the experts.
A critical reading of both accounts renders them completely incompatible. Luke doesn’t mention Egypt, and Matthew doesn’t mention Jerusalem. These were no accidental omissions, but rather would make no sense if entered into either story.
Matthew indicates of a dire warning, to flee to Egypt immediately, which he did.
“When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:”
-Matthew 2:14.
And there he stayed until Herod’s death, but kept even a distance, going back to Nazareth. He wouldn’t, by this account, gone to Jerusalem, also feared Herod’s son, who remained in power until 6 AD, at least not right away. Any purification, or dedications would have to ne done remotely from the Temple, certainly in the first weeks and months of Jesus life. However, Matthew makes it clear that the family fled immediately to Egypt due to imminent danger, where they lived for some years.
Luke gives a glorious announcement, that attracted attention, even shepherds bore witness. Luke mentions nothing about infant Jesus being in danger from Herod or anywhere else. Not being in danger, the family went about the usual practice in accordance with the law, culminating with dedication in the temple. Jesus was perhaps a couple of months old. In this version, not Herod but Quirinius was ruler/king, whom was interested in a census, and collecting taxes, for which Joseph did his part as a citizen. Having no cause for fear, the family entered Jerusalem, did the appropriate dedications, and met others who bore witness. Duties fufilled, the family went back to Nazareth, where the child grew (Luke 2:40).
In Luke, there is no flight to Egypt in Jesus youth, because there was no reason to. No account of an angel warning, nor account of Herod’s slaughter is present. Instead, Luke describes that after Bethlehem, the family went about their business in Jerusalem as expected, then went home. This wouldn’t be the case if an angel told them to flee to a different country.
In Matthew, infant Jesus has no dedication at the Temple, nor meeting pious individuals in Jerusalem, because an angel warned Joseph to flee the country. He did this, and stayed away for years, even skirting Judea on the way home. If Matthew is correct, then Jesus was certainly not dedicated at the Temple as an infant, as Luke claims.
Both accounts do not harmonize, because they describe events that cannot logically overlap in time. After the birth, Luke describes relatively mundane account of Jesus going home to Nazareth as a young child, perhaps months old. Matthew gives an account of a dramatic flight from Judea, not returning for years.
John introduces Jesus as having existed before time, thus divinely born. Mainstream Christian belief is that Jesus had God hood at (before) birth. Heretical views are that he didn’t gain this until baptism from John, or perhaps on ressurection. Supposing that Jesus had God status as a newborn child. Although God, he was unable or unwilling to protect he, and other male infants in Bethlehem. Nor was he able or willing to summon angelic bodyguards, to protect him or others. Instead, the family had to flee, instructions coming not from the infant God, but instead through angels in a dream. Resorting to flight is what a normal human family would do. However, why would the incarnation of God need to? Jesus was an infant, but still claimed to be the literal son of God. Should not this particular infant be endowed with supernatural ability, to at least protect himself?
The cannon Christian Gospels don’t mention Jesus having miraculous powers. However, the gnostic infancy gospel tells of this, including of a story where Jesus, as a child, turned clay birds into living creatures. While this is not in the Bible, it is in the Koran.
Jesus either did, or did not have supernatural abilities even in the cradle.
It makes no sense why he would not use this ability not just to save himself, but others from Herod.
Could it be that he was just a human baby all along, certainly not God, who also is bereft of any special power, just like the rest of us? The story, as told, suggests that infant Jesus was unable to directly protect himself or even summon aid. This is quite normal for a human baby who isn’t a God. Meanwhile, any god -if a god- needs no protection, nor needs to flee from any man.
Matthew’s account is more illogical than Luke’s in this matter. This is not to say either is true, but the more logical one is apt to be closer to the truth. Matthew writes of the narrative as a vehicle to fufill prophecy: thus its purpose is not so much truth as it is to serve a means of authors intent, a fabricated narrative to support the premise that Jesus is predicted in old testament scripture.
