Smoodock's Blog

If my previous study is logical and accurate, and Matthew brings Joseph and his family to Nazareth after spending two years in Egypt (Matthew 2:21-22), how should we understand Luke saying, that he left for Nazareth after offering the appropriate sacrifices, according to the Law (Luke 2:39)? Critical scholarship argues that Luke’s statement in verse-39 makes Matthew’s death threat and the family’s flight to Egypt unlikely or vice versa. The problem, as I understand it, is that critical scholarship, whether ignorantly or knowingly, tries to cause ancient writers to behave like modern authors. The fact is ancient literature was written much differently than modern authors compose their works. For example, ancient authors had to plan what they would say prior to their writing on a particular scroll, because what they said was limited to the length of the scroll. They couldn’t simply add another “page” or another chapter in order to say “everything” that could be said about a particular subject. Thus, Matthew makes an astonishing claim about Mary’s pregnancy (Matthew 1:18-25) but doesn’t elaborate.

The fact that Luke leaves out Herod’s death threat and the family’s need to escape to Egypt for safety, shouldn’t surprise anyone. Luke must decide what to include and what to leave out of the scroll he’s using. Additions and subtractions to the text have nothing to do with incompetency or gross negligence on the part of the author. It has to do with what the author wants to say, because he is limited in what can be said by the length of the scroll. He can include only so much data. Therefore, I believe Dan’s statement that it is: “gross negligence on the part of a narrator who claims to be giving a well-ordered account of everything that happened”[1] isn’t logical or practical. “Everything” is simply impossible for an ancient author.

Nevertheless, Luke’s words in Luke 2:39 do seem to say in a discerning analysis that Joseph and his family left the Temple for Nazareth, immediately after fulfilling everything pertaining to the Law. He tells us: “when (hos; G56143) they (the family) had performed all things according to the Law, they returned to… Nazareth.” The Greek word hos (G5613), translated “when” is used in an immediate sense. Luke uses it in Luke 1:41 to say the babe in Elizabeth’s womb leapt for joy, when (hos; G5613) Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting. So, in the presumed context of performing sacrifices (Luke 2:22-24), when they had finished, the family traveled home to Nazareth. However, the word, sacrifices, aren’t mention in verse-39. Instead, it’s when they had done or completed “all things according to the Law…”

Matthew is showing how Jesus fulfilled many things according to the scriptures. For example, in the Law Israel traveled from the Promised Land or Canaan to Egypt, in order to, centuries later, be called by God out of Egypt (Matthew 2:15; cp. Exodus 4:22; Hosea 11:1). Moreover, Moses had to flee the death threat of a king in order to later save the nation. So, in Luke 2:39, without doing so overtly, Luke’s “…all things according to the Law” refers to Matthew’s death threat by Herod, the king, and Jesus’ subsequent journey to Egypt and return to the Promised Land in order to save the nation of Israel. So, yes, the critical scholars are correct about the Greek, hos (G5613), but they misread the context, thinking fulfilling the Law had to do with ceremonial sacrifices in Luke 2:22-24. It doesn’t!

__________________________________________________________________

[1] See Dan McClellan’s video: On Contradictions Between Matthew & Luke’s Nativities at marker 9:05 in the transcript.