Talk:Matthew 2:15

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Bible Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

"This verse contains Matthew's third direct quote from the Old Testament. This brief line is from Hosea 11:1. It is not a direct copy from any extant version of Hosea. The most important change is that the author of Matthew replaces "my children" with "my son". This verse in Hosea is fairly clearly a description of the events in the Exodus, and not a piece of prophecy. Why Matthew seems to take this brief quote out of context and away from its original meaning has been long disputed by scholars..."

Ummm... I have checked several versions of the Bible and none of them have Matthew replace "my children" with "my son": "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son..." (Hosea 11.1 the Hebrew Bible in English - http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et1311.htm). "The Lord says, “When Israel was a child, I loved him and called him out of Egypt as my son." "where he stayed until Herod died. This was done to make come true what the Lord had said through the prophet, “I called my Son out of Egypt.”(Hosea 11.1 & Matthew 2.15 Good News Translation)

Yes, Hosea 11.1 was clearly referring to the the children of Israel, not to a literal son of God. But while the story in Matthew is about Jesus, Matthew does not actually replace "my children" with "my son" (that first part is simply omitted).

And since Hosea was not referring to a literal son of God, would Matthew have used that verse to mean that Jesus was the literal son of God? Given that the overwhelming majority of Matthew's gospel tells us that he did not believe that Jesus was the divine son of God, neither should Matthew 2.15 have originally meant that Jesus was the literal son of God. (Or it might not have originally been a part of Matthew's gospel). Alan B25 (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan B25 (talk • contribs)