Posted by Rational [RW] on April 10, 1999 at 13:02:14 {83dcrF/7KEYgCUWv3.1cZ7Lyyl6zQk}:
In Reply to: *Greatest Man Update posted by Ben1957 on April 09, 1999 at 23:09:21:
That, of course, is the "standard" reply. But read it again:
So when they had carried out all the things according to the law of Jehovah, they went back into Galilee to their own city Nazareth.Notice the segue word "So"? Does it really make sense to you that holy spirit would suggest that Mary's having 'carried out the requirements of the law of purification' was more significant in Jesus' life than Herod's recorded attempt on his life? Compression, by definition, strips out the superficial, not the essential. Your explanation doesn't make sense to me. Saying 'Now that they had fulfilled their obligations in Jerusalem, they were free to return to Nazareth, which they did' is far different from saying 'Some time later, after many significant events, they returned to Nazareth.' A much more plausible explanation is that Matthew's account is not history but hyperbole, filling Jesus' unknown early life with metaphor to suggest how he fulfilled the Hebrew Scriptures, including traditions such as Israel going down into Egypt, the male babies being slain in the days of Moses, etc., and prophecies such as the riches of the nations being brought to Israel.
Luke's account, I believe, is a more historical (and less metaphorical) one. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that, while Josephus wrote much about the many atrocities of Herod, he somehow neglected to mention the slaughter of all Judean male children under two? Wouldn't you say that was at least as significant as Herod's murder of his wife? And wouldn't Luke, who "traced all things from the start with accuracy" (Luke 1:3) and who then recounts events in the days of Herod (Luke 1:5) have been expected to include this account, if it were historical?
Here are some sites to check on Herod and his reign:
http://www.realtime.net/~wdoud/library/judea.html
http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/topics/josephus.htm
By the way, I do not post this for the purpose of diminishing in any way anyone's respect for the gospel accounts. I hold them sacred and part of 'all scripture inspired of God and beneficial'. But I think they must be understood and used as they were evidently intended, and not as a modern-day idol or license for those who would impose their conscience on others.
Best wishes,
Rational