“It also talks of a violent and overt government event - the slaughter of the innocents. Being this gospel was written within the living memory of some people that went through it, it would have been pretty brazen for it to be an out and out lie.”
One would have thought that this violent and momentus event would have been mentioned in one of the other Gospels, or in some of the history that we have of the period (Jospehus, for instance, who wrote fairly extensively on Herod’s reign). Yet it appears nowhere but Matthew’s Gospel, along with the flight to Egypt.
Given that, as you say, many readers may have had eyewitness or first hand accounts of Jesus’ life, wouldn’t it be more reasonable to assume that they already knew those facts, and didn’t need someone to write them down for them. And that Matthew’s intended readership would have been entirely clear that the Gospel was not a ‘history’ of Jesus’ life, which they already knew. In that light, the themes of Matthew’s Gospel story (though opinions differ as to whether it was written by the same author as the rest of the Gospel, I seem to remember from my theology classes) become a lot clearer. In this instance a drawing of a paralell between Jesus and Moses which would have been abundantly obvious to Matthew’s intended audience.
If he had intended to write a historical account for readers two thousand years in the future, then he may have written differently. I doubt that crossed his mind however.
***If he had intended to write a historical account for readers two thousand years in the future, then he may have written differently. I doubt that crossed his mind however.***
If you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then you will know that Matthew’s Gospel is written exactly as the Holy Spirit wanted it to be written.