by Teeny Pyjamas 7 Replies latest watchtower bible
Hi guys,
Do any of you actually believe in the account in Matthew where King Herod orders the genocide of all the young boys?
I'd like to hear your opinion on it.
Here's ours http://www.jehovahswitnessblog.com/bible/slaughter-of-your-innocence/
Jaymes
Matthew wrote for Jewish Christians, did he not? It does not matter to me whether it is factual. I assume it is likely fictional or exaggerated. The point is that Herod fear the legitimacy of Jesus. Whether Herod did or did not is not relevant. I can still be Christian knowing that these are stories. If it were my piece, I would not take such a strong position. It s your piece, however.
The gospels record all sorts of faith happenings surrounding the birth of Jesus. I assume there is some Jewish element present that I am not familiar with yet.
Matthew was determined to protray Jesus as the greater Moses.
He invents a number of elements of Jesus' story in order to create a parallel for the benefit of a Jewish audience.
The "slaughter of the innocents" and the flight to Egypt are two examples.
Nearly all the jesus miracles and stories are actually copies of similar stories from other ancient great men and gods.
Concerning Herod the Great, the NAC-Matthew commentary (Craig L. Blomberg, pp. 62, 68) says:
[p. 62]
. . . was a half-Jew, half-Idumean, who, through accommodation with the Romans, ascended to power as client-ruler of Israel in 37 B.C. He was known as a great builder of public works and a shrewd diplomat in his dealings with both Romans and Jews, but he laid oppressive taxes on and conscripted labor from the Israelites. As he grew older, he became increasingly paranoid about threats against his person and throne. He had numerous sons, wives, and others close to him put to death because he feared plots to overthrow him. After frequent disputes with Ceasar Augustus, the emperor uttered his famous pun that he would rather be Herod's pig (hys) than his son (huios). 22
[p.68]
. . . It has been often observed that there are no historical documents substantiating Herod's "massacre of the innocents." But given the small size of Bethlehem and the rural nature of the surrounding region, there may have been as few as twenty children involved, and the killings would have represented a relatively minor incident in Herod's career, worthy of little notice by ancient historians who concentrated on great political and military exploits. The number could be even less if, as the grammar allows, the phrase "two years old and under" is translated "under two years old." 38
Footnote 22 reads:
Most of our historical information concerning Herod comes from Josephus's Antiquities, Books 14-18.
Footnote 38 reads:
On the meaning and historical plausibility of this episode, see esp. R. T. France, "Herod and the Children of Bethlehem," Novum Testamentum 21 (1979): 98-120.
Herod's mental state as it survives in the history by Josephus move than covers whether he would be of the frame of mind to murder these children if he thought it threatened him as the fulfillment of the coming messiah who would rebuild the temple. Josephus records that as his imminent death was approaching, fearing that people would be laughing, he herded everybody into the Hippodrome with orders that they be killed upon his death, so that would assure nobody would be laughing at the time of his death because they would be mourning all those killed. But those in charge decided not to carry this out. But this is more than enough, if true, to demonstrate his desperation.
ANTIQUITIES 17.6.5-6:
5 "...For that he was not unacquainted with the temper of the Jews, that his death would be a thing very desirable, and exceedingly acceptable to them, because during his lifetime they were ready to revolt from him, and to abuse the donations he had dedicated to God that it therefore was their business to resolve to afford him some alleviation of his great sorrows on this occasion; for that if they do not refuse him their consent in what he desires, he shall have a great mourning at his funeral, and such as never had any king before him; for then the whole nation would mourn from their very soul, which otherwise would be done in sport and mockery only. He desired therefore, that as soon as they see he hath given up the ghost, they shall place soldiers round the hippodrome, while they do not know that he is dead; and that they shall not declare his death to the multitude till this is done, but that they shall give orders to have those that are in custody shot with their darts; and that this slaughter of them all will cause that he shall not miss to rejoice on a double account; that as he is dying, they will make him secure that his will shall be executed in what he charges them to do; and that he shall have the honor of a memorable mourning at his funeral. So he deplored his condition, with tears in his eyes, and obtested them by the kindness due from them, as of his kindred, and by the faith they owed to God, and begged of them that they would not hinder him of this honorable mourning at his funeral. So they promised him not to transgress his commands.
6. Now any one may easily discover the temper of this man's mind, which not only took pleasure in doing what he had done formerly against his relations, out of the love of life, but by those commands of his which savored of no humanity; since he took care, when he was departing out of this life, that the whole nation should be put into mourning, and indeed made desolate of their dearest kindred, when he gave order that one out of every family should be slain, although they had done nothing that was unjust, or that was against him, nor were they accused of any other crimes; while it is usual for those who have any regard to virtue to lay aside their hatred at such a time, even with respect to those they justly esteemed their enemies."
The account of killing the children at Bethlehem might have made Herod even more unpopular, so it is possible it was done secretly and thus we have no historical record. But another theory might be that his killing or trying to kill someone from every household is related to his killing these children and we are just seeing a distorted version of that. However, we sill have the historical reference that he was of the state of mind to kill someone of innocence in multiple households.
Jesus was born around September 14-15, 2 BC. When Herod killed the babies, Jesus was already over a year old. Herod died on Shebat 2, 1 AD, 18 days after an eclipse occurred on December 29, 1 BC. Jesus and his family fled down to Egypt after which it was heard that Herod died. So we're only talking about a few months for this to occur, from mid-September through mid-January, though the closer we get to his actual death, the more unstable he became.
It should also be noted that some considered him the coming "messiah" who was to rebuld the temple. This may have been his interest in rebuilding the physical temple at Jerusalem. His followers were called "Herodians." This reflects back on the revision of the chronology. Based on the revised chronology, which is 82 years earlier than the true dating (537 vs 455 BCE), the expectation of the messiah would have occurred 82 years earlier than 29 CE, which is around 54 BCE. Herod was around 20 at this time; he became king over Judea in 37 CE and ruled for 37 years down to 1 AD. His chronology is distorted to expand the rule of his son, Archaelus and so it is claimed that the 37-year rule dates back to 40 and his rule beginning in 37 was only 34 years. Yeah, sure!
At any rate, he certainly would have seen any other potential messiah as a threat to his own claim as messiah and if he killed rivals in his own family whom he was in fear of, I'm sure there would have been no hesitation to kiill a few "innocents" under the age of two in the small town of Bethlehem. So even though we have no extra-Biblical account of this specific event, it certainly fits the context in many ways of something Herod would do to anyone threatening him or his image.
TEENY: In the link you provided it says:
"But no secular historian mentions this atrocity either. There were writers at the time who hated Herod and wrote about every wicked deed he committed. Is it reasonable to conclude that they would write nothing at all about his murdering all of the baby boys in Bethlehem? There were plenty of historians around at the time who would’ve heard of this mass murder. It is inconceivable that they would’ve left out of their histories one of the most heinous acts in all of history! It’s obvious that this is one of the many incidents in the Bible that never happened."
While these are things to consider, I'm surprised you don't note whether Herod would be that type of person. I mean? What if Herod was fun-loving and preoccupied with women and booze and never killed any of his family members. I think that would suggest he would never do such a thing. But the man was paranoid and got worse very close to his death. As I noted, if Jesus was at least one year of age, this event would have happened within months of Herod's death. Further, the incident may have been very well known and the reference in Josephus that Herod wanted to kill one person out of every household near the time of his death, may actually be a reference to what he did in Bethlehem:
" Now any one may easily discover the temper of this man's mind, which not only took pleasure in doing what he had done formerly against his relations, out of the love of life, but by those commands of his which savored of no humanity; since he took care, when he was departing out of this life, that the whole nation should be put into mourning, and indeed made desolate of their dearest kindred, when he gave order that one out of every family should be slain, although they had done nothing that was unjust,..." (Antiquities 17.6.6)
Now this sounds like what happened at Betlehem, where you have someone killed in nearly each household for nothing they did personally. So my opinion/criticism would be here that while you claim this should have been mentioned by some historians other than just one, that presumption that historians were pro-Jewish and not simply anti-Herod, that this is something out of the ordinary that is difficult to believe. But we have references that Herod was mentally ill and has a history of killing his own family members, so his killing children who threatened to potentially be the messiah other than himself is not outside his character. I note this because if we had no reference of his personality or character that he was violent or vicious, then it could be argued that this incident, in addition to not be mentioned by anyone else, is otherwise, outside his character. But that's definitely not the case. He did kill people whom he thought was a threat. Plus the above reference certainly "insinuates" what did happen. Thus we can't claim this was not well known, only that a decision was made not to make that reference specific, but to claim that near his death he wanted to kill someone in every household, meaning on a smaller scale he did very close to that at Bethlehem. So for me, that's more than enough not to doubt Matthew's account. Adding to this theory is the timing. This is something that occurred in connection with his insanity near the end of his death, which is when the incident at Bethlehem occurred.
'OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON" You also seem to note how this doesn't make sense. Well, maybe not to you who don't see this as a prophecy, but the Bible can reflect many things via interpretation. In this case, this is fulfilled THREE TIMES! First, of course, when the Israelites were called out of Egyptian bondage in ancient Egypt. Second, when Jesus of the 1st Century who fled down there was called out of Egypt. But thirdly, this is fulfilled by the 2nd coming because the messiah of the 2nd coming is born in the tride of Joseph via his younger son Ephraim, who was half Egyptian. So whether or not that you get it, those who consider themselves prophets can read a lot more into Scripture than the average person.
TEENY: Your linked article also addresses the issue of the death of Herod and the census by Syrenius:
"
First of all, Herod died in 4 BCE. So, for the account in Matthew to be true, Jesus would’ve had to have been born somewhere between 6 BCE and 4 BCE at the latest in order for Herod to have attempted to kill him (and estimate his age at two or under). But according to Luke [who claims to "have traced all things from the start with accuracy" (Luke 1:3)] , Jesus’ birth coincided with a census taken when Cyrenius (aka Quirinius) was governor of Syria . In fact, this census is the reason Luke gives for Mary and Joseph to have journeyed from Nazareth to Bethlehem, where Jesus was born. (Luke 2:1-7) But history shows that this census took place in the second term of Cyrenius: between 6-9 CE — at least eight years too late to ever harmonize with Matthew’s account."
An alternative view is that since Jesus clearly was born on September 14/15, 2 BC if he was circumcised on the 8th day of his life to fulfill the 8th day of the Festival of Booths, then the chronology of the gospels contradicts the secular history of Herod. But since Josephus gives a double rulership for Herod, one 34 years from 37 BCE and one 34 years from 37 BCE, we automatically have to conclude that there was a revision and this double rulership is just covering for that revision; that is, that his rule was actually 37 years but from 37 BCE. If that's the case, then he would have died on Shebat 2, 1 A.D. If so, Jesus would have been over 1 year of age after September 15, 1 BC, which is when Herod tried to kill those babies 2 years and younger shortly before his death. Of note, there is no Roman zero year, so Herod's death on Shebat 2, 1 AD is just a few months after Jesus became 2 years old after around September 15, 1 BC. So once Herod's true date of death is corrected, all those arguments trying to date his death in 4 BC are irrelevant.
Second, I find it fascinating that you actually refer to the "second term" of Cyrenius! Do you know when his first term was? It was from 4-1 BCE! Thus all Luke is confirming is that Cyrenius conducted a sensus during his first term as well. Now think of what you'e contradicting here. This is not just about Jesus. The account says that Herod was still ruling during the first term of Cyrenius. The common idea is that Herod died in 4 BC, which is not correct. When his true reign ends in 1 AD, though, you have an overlap of the governorship of Cyrenius and Herod.
So the question is, was the secular history of Herod revised so that he dies before the 1st governorship of Cyrenius? And if we correct that rulership based on available options, does one show an overlap of the governorship of Cyenrius and the reign of Herod? The answer is: YES! The 1st governorship of Cyrenius at which time he conducted a census was from 4-1 BC, and Herod's death was in 1 AD, so you have the overlap. Of course, the Bible requires Jesus to be born in the Fall of 2 BC, so this correction agrees with the Bible. We have Jesus 2 years of age just before Herod's death, we have a census during the first governorship of Cyrenius was which 4-1 BC. Complete harmony.
Here is a video that deals with the record of governors during this period and how we know Cyrenius ruled from 4-1 BC. It also deals with how Josephus intentionally included an eclipse that occurred 18 days before the death of Herod, which could only occur on December 29, 1 BC. Bottom line, many criticize the Bible for revisionism but seldom apply the same rules to the secular records. Since you asked for other opinions, my position is not to contradict you here or pursuade you to trust the Bible, but to show you how some who do trust the Bible also find continuity with available secular records. The fact that the gospels date Jesus' birth in 2 BC whereas the secular records claim Herod died in 4 BC immediately sets the premise that the secular records must have been revised. But once we look at them, the fact that Josephus gives two rulership timelines for Herod proves not only the revisionism, but requires us to date the death of Herod in 1 AD, which fits the gospel account. Furthermore, the eclipse Herod mentions confirms his death in 1 AD as well. Enjoy the video!
