There is no historical reference to Herod ordering the slaughter of all the babies 2 years of age and under. As this story is almost a mirror image of the circumstances that the Old Testament and Josephus say happened when Moses was born, it's not really surprising. To the early Christians who were compiling these writings, Jesus was "the greater Moses" so they could have easily incorporated this story to fit the scenario. Just as the story surrounding John the Baptist's birth was a mirror image of the Abraham-Sarah legend. There's also no historical evidence that the Romans ever had the "tradition" of releasing a prisoner to the Jews each year.
King Herod, and his "slaughter of the innocents"
by stevenyc 28 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
LouBelle
You guys are starting to make me wobble.
-
NeonMadman
One reason that occurs to me that there might be no historical record of the "slaughter" might have been that it was small scale. Bethlehem in the first century wasn't exactly New York City. The slaughter might have consisted of a couple of dozen kids, tops, probably fewer. Killings on that scale were not unusual in ancient times, and the story probably had no particular significance historically, except to the extent that it impacted the life story of Jesus.
-
hmike
You guys are starting to make me wobble.
LouBelle,
Rulers in ancient times had a lot of latitude to do what they wanted without any repercussions from the government or public opinion. After all, they WERE the law. If Herod wanted to put a few children to death in a remote town, who was going to stop him or hold him accountable? The Romans wouldn't care since it didn't involve Roman citizens. As long as order was maintained, anything was fine with them. The Jews were certainly too scared of Herod to protest.
As Neomadman wrote, this would have confined to a small town. This wasn't Jerusalem. And we may overestimate the scale on which it occurred--there is no count given. It's entirely possible that something like this could escape notice by the few historians there were, or that any documentation has been lost.
We have no extra-Biblical historical record either way--in support or denial of this event. If we choose not to accept Matthew's account, the only truly legitimate conclusion we can come to is, "We don't know." Any opinion either way involves presuppositions and assumptions. At this point, any evidence proposed to deny that this event actually occured is circumstantial, and not even strong at that.
Also, Matthew only states that the Magi found Mary and Jesus in Bethlehem. It doesn't say how long the family had been there, or what brought them there.
In short, there is no solid evidence to deny this could have been an historical event as recorded.
-
Leolaia
If you read my thread, you will see that Matthew has clearly composed his story out of the stories of Exodus and the haggadaic Moses tradition, even following the text word-for-word. To me, this is a pretty strong indication that this is a fictional story designed to cast Jesus as a sort of Moses figure (and indeed, for Matthew Jesus was the great modern Law-giver, or interpreter), and not a neutral reporting of historical facts. The similarity isn't just the slaughter itself, but also that the slaughter is to eliminate a potential rival, the slaughter was preceded by an omen, the divorcing of wives, the dream vision, the flight to Egypt until Herod's death, and so forth.
-
Narkissos
hmike,
Rulers in ancient times had a lot of latitude to do what they wanted without any repercussions from the government or public opinion. After all, they WERE the law. If Herod wanted to put a few children to death in a remote town, who was going to stop him or hold him accountable? The Romans wouldn't care since it didn't involve Roman citizens. As long as order was maintained, anything was fine with them. The Jews were certainly too scared of Herod to protest.
There are many examples of protests by non-Roman citizens against local rulers and Roman officials which resulted in the removal of "evil leaders". Philo wrote In Flaccum (Against Flaccus) against a Roman prefect who instigated or condoned persecutions of Jews in Alexandria. He personally led the protest embassy before Emperor Caligula. Pilate was removed by Vitellius, governor of Syria, and then judged in Rome as the result of protests by Samaritan and Jewish non-Roman citizens (Josephus, War 2:169-177; Antiquities 18:35,55-64,87-89). Herod Antipas also lost his tetrarchy and was exiled as the result of a quarrel with his nephew Herod Agrippa I, in which a charge of treason was retained against him (Antiquities 18:247-252; War 1:183; Dio Cassius 59:8:2).
I agree that the Bethlehem slaughter, if it were historical, would have been a minor incident from the Roman standpoint. Yet there is no reason why Josephus wouldn't have mentioned it had he heard of it.
Of course the main problem with the historicity of the story is its obvious literary composition, as Leolaia pointed out.
Also, Matthew only states that the Magi found Mary and Jesus in Bethlehem. It doesn't say how long the family had been there, or what brought them there.
Note how Matthew introduces Nazareth in his narrative (2:19ff), after the slaughter of Bethlehem and the flight to Egypt:
When Herod died, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child's life are dead." Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother, and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And after being warned in a dream, he went away (not "back") to the district of Galilee. There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, "He will be called a Nazorean."
There is no hint in Matthew that Joseph (or Mary) had ever lived in Galilee before. He needed a special reason (the continuation of the Herodian rule) not to return to Judea. For this reason he goes away to Galilee and then settles in Nazareth.
Only the later need for harmonisation with the originally independent narrative of Luke provides a different picture. But neither Matthew nor Luke (at least the writers of the nativity narrative) could expect their readers to mix their story with another.
-
hmike
It always seems to come down to two possibilities: (A) men manufactured stories to support some assertion about some characteristic of God or the existence of God, or (B) God engineered the events, the events support the existence of God or something about God, and men just wrote them down. Same details, two different perspectives. As I said: either side requires presumptions and assumptions. If LouBelle or anyone else wants to accept these events as historical, that’s just as legit as any other perspective
-
hmike
Narkissos,
I have to say that I don't see any indication of where Joseph and Mary originally came from.
You wrote:
And after being warned in a dream, he went away (not "back") to the district of Galilee.
"Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel
Then why not "return to the land of Israel." -
Narkissos
It always seems to come down to two possibilities: (A) men manufactured stories to support some assertion about some characteristic of God or the existence of God, or (B) God engineered the events, the events support the existence of God or something about God, and men just wrote them down. Same details, two different perspectives. As I said: either side requires presumptions and assumptions. If LouBelle or anyone else wants to accept these events as historical, that’s just as legit as any other perspective
hmike, here's something I have found increasingly difficult to understand: how come believers cringe from the idea of God having people write up a fictional story, while they seem to be comfortable with the idea of God "engineering" a real slaughter for the sake of having the story written?
Of course anyone is entitled to believe what s/he really wishes to believe. The problem, from my experience, is that often what starts as honest belief becomes pretense of belief, and this proves to be a heavy burden in the long run. Still we may waste many years pretending, without even admitting it to ourselves.
I have to say that I don't see any indication of where Joseph and Mary originally came from.
You wrote:
And after being warned in a dream, he went away (not "back") to the district of Galilee.
"Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel
Then why not "return to the land of Israel."As you certainly gathered, my point didn't rest a single word but on the overall narrative logic of Matthew.
The narrative problems and gaps which classic apologetics has to explain away or fill in every Christmas in order to squeeze the two independent stories of Matthew and Luke into one are overwhelming imo:
Joseph and Mary live in Nazareth, but Quirinius' census (the well-known Quirinius' census, 10 years after Herod's death? No, it must be another census in a previous mandate of Quirinius, which "secular history" unfortunately did not mention) has them travel to Bethlehem where Jesus is born in a stable, to which the shepherds are sent; 8 days later Jesus is circumcised; 33 days later (Luke 2:24; cf. Leviticus 12:8) he is presented to the nearby temple in Jerusalem. "When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth." (2:39) "Now every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the festival of the Passover." (2:41)
No, wait. About two years (at least one Passover) after Jesus' birth (Matthew 2:16) Joseph and Mary (still) live in Bethlehem, but they have now moved in a house where the Magi are sent. Then they go to Egypt, back to Judea and as they feel they can't stay there they decide to move to Galilee, eventually settling in Nazareth (yay, where they were in the first place!).
Note that the underlined portions which are necessary for harmonising Matthew and Luke do not belong to the text of any of them. They are just apologetic paratext, modifying both Matthew and Luke for the sake of "historical consistency". That's not my idea of respecting the texts, but it's just me.
-
hmike
hmike, here's something I have found increasingly difficult to understand: how come believers cringe from the idea of God having people write up a fictional story, while they seem to be comfortable with the idea of God "engineering" a real slaughter for the sake of having the story written?
Narkissos,
I understand your point, really. Personally, I don't subscribe to the theology that has God as some cosmic puppeteer controlling every tiny detail of every event--I don't think the overall picture supplied by the Bible texts indicates that. What I see is that there is a certain natural order to things that sometimes God intervenes into, but sometimes not, for whatever reason. Paul and others also indicate that there are forces at work to intended to undermine the work of God. So, I don't see that God would have brought about these murders. I can't give any answer as to why God wouldn't have stopped Herod, and anything I could suggest would be pure speculation on my part. One thing I always come back to is, "If the men who wrote the Bible didn't have a problem with it, how can I?"
I really don't have a problem with anyone suggesting that accounts in Bible texts may be invented--the information available certainly can be interpreted that way. What I have a problem with is a confident claim that it is the ONLY explanation. There are members of this forum who are unsure of what position to take. I just want to make sure this other position is represented as a reasonable alternative--which I see that it is.
The problem, from my experience, is that often what starts as honest belief becomes pretense of belief, and this proves to be a heavy burden in the long run. Still we may waste many years pretending, without even admitting it to ourselves.
That's interesting. Would you elaborate on that for me?