Bible Error: Jesus Cast as Dangerous Child

by JosephAlward 5 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • JosephAlward
    JosephAlward

    The myth of the dangerous child was virtually universal in pre-biblical times: A child is born about whom certain prophecies have been made, and who represents a threat to a king or tyrant. The child is removed from danger and later returns in triumph.

    The story of one of the better-known dangerous children was told in the epic poem "Mahabarata," written two centuries before Jesus' birth. In it, we are told of the Hindu faith's virgin-born Crishna who was prophesied to be the destroyer of the tyrant Kansa, who heard of it and ordered all the male children born at that time to be killed. Crishna survived because a heavenly voice warned his foster father to flee with the child.

    Dangerous-child stories were told of Buddha, Zoroaster, Hercules, Oedipus, Romulus and Remus, and many others too numerous to mention; all of these legends pre-date that of Jesus by several centuries. The most recent dangerous-child story--that of Jesus, as told in the Bible by Matthew, deserves special attention.

    "When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem, saying: Where is he that is born king of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the East and have come to worship him. Then Herod, when he had privately called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said: Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word." (Matthew 2:1-8)

    The wise men found Jesus but didn't return to tell Herod: "When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under. (Matthew 2:16)

    This was just one more story so much like so many others, cast this time in the specific mold of Crishna: birth of a god-child, a threatened monarch, heavenly warning to the parent, and the escape.

    The simple folk of that time were used to stories about these dangerous-heroic child-saviors and were awaiting their own; Matthew made sure his messiah candidate was qualified, so he invented the story above.

    If all of these babies in Bethlehem and the surrounding area had been murdered by the Romans, there would have been unleashed a flood of contemporaneous lamenting poems, art, and journalistic accounts. But, extremely improbably, the story of the murderous Herod is found only in the gospel according to Matthew; nowhere else in the Bible is it mentioned, and no Jewish or Roman historians of that time says a word about this sensational event.

    The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (110 AD), who went out of his way to record every misdeed of despots and tyrants, was completely silent. Silent also was Josephus (40 AD), the Jewish historian who provided a detailed account of all the lesser evil-doings of Herod up to the end of his life; not a word did he write about Herod's massacre of the innocent children.

    The reason why such a manifestly ridiculous story for two millennia has been promulgated as truth by church fathers is partly given by an anonymous historian quoted by T.W. Doane ("Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions," T. W. Doane, p. 173.):

    "The brow of many a theologian has been bent over this (Matthew) narrative! For, as long as people believed in the miraculous inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, of course they accepted every page as literally true, and thought that there could not be any contradiction between the different accounts or representations of Scripture. The worst of all such pre-conceived ideas is, that they compel those who hold them to do violence to their own sense of truth. For when these so-called religious prejudices come into play, people are afraid to call things by their right names, and without knowing it themselves, become guilty of all kinds of evasive and arbitrary practices; for what would be thought quite unjustifiable in any other case is here considered a duty, inasmuch as it is supposed to tend toward the maintenance of faith and the glory of God!"

    Joseph F. Alward
    "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
    http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

  • Bang
    Bang

    Joseph writes:
    << a manifestly ridiculous story for two millennia has been promulgated as truth >>

    Bang replies:
    The Scriptures are known to have lots of historical inclusions, and so through the ages, in times when an accurate historical representation seemed plausible, that's what people thought. But if an event was never literal, it doesn't impact on the truth of a loving story - only on peoples perceptions and opinions.

    Herod also inquired of Jesus and he was fascinated by Him. Whether or not he realised it at first, he sought to destroy the child - "envy slayeth the little one" [Job] Unable to find Him, he sought to kill the child in other 'houses', by killing any child similar.

    I'm assuming you also understand about the 'house', how the Lord enters and 'binds the strong man', and the elder son in a huff wouldn't enter - when the wise men found Him they couldn't be going back to Herod again, ask a devout catholic.
    "and entering the house they found the child with His mother Mary".

    Bang

  • JosephAlward
    JosephAlward

    Bang,

    How could all those babies have been murdered and Matthew was the only one in the world who ever had a thing to say about it? Isn't this evidence that the murder of the innocents never happened, and that Matthew was wrong, and therefore the Bible is in serious error? If not, why not?

    Joseph F. Alward
    "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
    http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

  • RunningMan
    RunningMan

    "But if an event was never literal, it doesn't impact on the truth of a loving story - only on
    peoples perceptions and opinions."

    This seems awfully convenient to me. For many centuries, the creation account was taken
    literally. When scientific progress made that literal interpretation untenable, then it was
    converted to symbolic or figurative.

    If you begin with the assumption that the Bible is always right, you can adjust the facts by
    saying that whenever it is wrong, it is not to be taken literally.

    If a book doesn't mean what it says, then it doesn't mean anything at all.

  • Bang
    Bang

    Joseph writes:
    << Isn't this evidence that the murder of the innocents never happened, and that Matthew was wrong, and therefore the Bible is in serious error? If not, why not? >>

    Well, it's the same argument if Jonah didn't actually get eaten by a whale or if God didn't take one week, six thousand years back, to create everything. Fact is, the Bible is a group of stories for teaching things about God, and not a history book for proving or disproving historical facts - particularly as a motive for whether or not we should give our belongings to the poor, or not.

    Looking for historical proofs about worldly things, in writings intended for the spirit, places yourself in serious error, not the loving, teaching story.

    And RunningMan writes:
    << If a book doesn't mean what it says, then it doesn't mean anything at all >>

    But it does mean what it says - and not what someone else says.

    Bang

  • patio34
    patio34

    Thanks Joseph for that interesting treatise. I had not run across the 'dangerous-child' myth before.

    Your posts are always interesting.

    Pat

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit