King Herod, and his "slaughter of the innocents"

by stevenyc 28 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  stevenyc

  Matt 2:16 "Then Herod, seeing he had been outwitted by the astrologers, fell into a great rage, and he sent out and had all the boys in Beth´le·hem and in all its districts done away with, from two years of age and under, according to the time that he had carefully ascertained from the astrologers"

  Does anyone know if there is any historical evidence to support King Herod's mass killing of children under the age of two, when Christ was born.

  I can't find any. That whole chapter seams to me not to be so much a historical report, but more a justification.

  steve
• 

  Bagira

  Hi Steve,

  the following link gives some aspects to think about:

  http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/herodSlaughterQuestion.htm
• 

  RunningMan

  Well, according to that unbiased source, "The Christian Courier", there is no secular reference to that outrageous event. The Jewish historians of the time, who loved to bash Herod, were for some reason, completely silent on an event of huge magnitude.

  However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no way to prove that the event did not happen. But there is no proof that it did, and it is one of those events that surely should have left some sort of trail.

  Another principle is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In this case, this extraordinary claim has no evidence. So, draw your own conclusion.
• 

  Narkissos

  Does anyone know if there is any historical evidence to support King Herod's mass killing of children under the age of two, when Christ was born.

  
  As Bagira's link makes clear: none.

  From the four canonical Gospels, only Matthew and Luke contain a story of Jesus' birth. For theological reasons both of them attempt to connect Bethlehem with Nazareth, but do this in a contradictory way.

  In Matthew, Joseph and Mary live in Bethlehem and the "slaughter of innocents" triggers the sequence of events which eventually leads them to Nazareth.

  In Luke, Joseph and Mary live in Nazareth and the (anachronistic) census has them travel to Bethlehem where Jesus is born.

  From those general narrative frames it is quite obvious that we are dealing with legends, not history. For a detailed analysis cf. Leolaia's http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/82425/1.ashx
• 

  Blueblades

  IF THIS IS TRUE, WHY WASN'T JOHN THE BAPTIST KILLED, HE WAS UNDER TWO YEARS OF AGE AT THE TIME?
• 

  Leolaia

  That's the problem that arises when two independent narratives are harmonized. Since there is no hint in Matthew that John the Baptist was born at the same time, there isn't any issue. Similarly, the Lukan account has no hint at all of the slaughter and the escape to Egypt. It is when the two (fictional) stories are combined that these conflicts arise.
• 

  LouBelle

  Blueblades: John the baptist was 6 months or so older than Jesus - I'm not too sure where in the bible but it does mention it - will check. Also Elizabeth (mary's cousin) stayed quite a way from them, so perhaps the masacare was limited to the immediate area
• 

  googlemagoogle

  so perhaps the masacare was limited to the immediate area
  
  no, it never happened... herod killed most of his own children and family, but there is no historical evidence for the bible tale.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Are the two tales really independant? Or was the John birth legend commandeered by the Jesus followers?
• 

  sonnyboy

  How about evidence for the 'angel of death' killing all the first born of Egypt?

  The Christian God is so kind.