King Herod, and his "slaughter of the innocents"

by stevenyc 28 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  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?"

  Sticking to the Matthean Nativity stories, at first glance the author doesn't mean to tell fortuitous events but events happening as the fulfillment of prophecy (e.g. 1:22; 2:15,17,23). The idea of God "engineering" events (I took the verb over from your previous post) sounds very natural then. Either that or God is subject to some "eternal destiny" which he is only able to know in advance.

  On the other hand, from a critical standpoint the "fulfillment pattern" makes full sense: it is one of the seams pointing to why and how the midrashic story was made up out of OT material.

  If we widen the scope, I would hold that each generation of "the men who wrote the Bible" did have a lot of problems, especially moral ones, with earlier narratives, which resulted in editing or rewriting them (e.g. Samuel-Kings --> Chronicles). But I think we already had that discussion before.

  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?

  Just a reflection on my own silly life. Or the very subtle nature of the "leaven of hypocrisy".

  When I started to question the JW doctrine, I realised that there were some subjects I had always been uneasy with, although I had never really admitted it to myself before.

  Did I ever believe? Had I been asked I would have answered yes, without any conscience of lying. Yet looking back I can't help thinking that sometimes my sincerity was very superficial.

  This of course is not limited to JWs. Being stuck in a militant, teaching or apologetic position always leads you to appear more convinced than you really are. The cost of any admission of doubt, even to yourself, gets higher and higher until it is too high to afford. And while we are there we can hurt ourselves badly.
• 

  hmike

  Narkissos.

  Let me make some suggestions about the birth narratives.

  Part of your argument hinges on the two-year delay for Herod to take action. You're assuming that Joseph and Mary would have remained in Bethlehem with Jesus until Herod decided to issue the decree. It certainly wouldn’t take two years for the Magi to travel from Bethlehem to Herod’s palace, so maybe your assumption is that the family had remained in Bethlehem some 18-22 months after the birth. I submit that need not be the case. Matthew does not indicate how long the family remained in Bethlehem, but I suggest it was only a short time. God would have known what Herod was going to do and warned Joseph early. Perhaps Herod forgot about the Magi for a while and something reminded him after a couple of years. This period MAY have included a delay between the time Herod decided to issue the decree and the time it would actually be implemented. In any case, I suggest the family was long gone by the time the soldiers arrived to carry out the order.

  The other problem may lie with Luke writing that the family returned to Nazareth after the purification. On the surface, it seems to imply it was immediate, but again, no time period is specified. They simply ended up in , but did they go there directly, or by way of Egypt?

  You suggest that the accounts of Matthew and Luke were written independently. I agree. I say it’s possible that the author of Matthew (the tax collector himself?) did not know that Joseph and Mary came from Galilee, or chose to ignore that, making it look as though they just haphazardly ended up there after coming back from Egypt.

  Here’s another point: we aren’t told how long the stay in Egypt was.

  The author of Luke, on the other hand, for all the research he did, may not have known about Egypt, or did not consider it relevant.

  So a possible scenario: Joseph and Mary take the infant Jesus from Bethlehem after the visit by the Magi, stop in Jerusalem for the circumcision as good Jews would, continue on to Egypt, then return to Nazareth.
• 

  Narkissos

  hmike,

  First I would like to stress that my first personal recommendation for reading the Bible texts is consider each one of them as a self-contained whole. Iow, before you compare Matthew and Luke and make them either clash or harmonise, try to forget about Luke when you read Matthew et vice versa.

  In this perspective, my reading of Matthew is very simple: Joseph has taken along (paralambanô, 1:20,24) Mary as his wife, i.e. he has brought her to his home (whence the precision that he had no relationship with her until she gave birth, v. 25). In the absence of any other suggestion, the narrative implication is that Jesus was born in (Mary and) Joseph's house (2:11) in Bethlehem (2:1).

  Now if you want to harmonise Luke's story with Matthew's you have also to explain that Joseph, Mary and Jesus moved from Luke's stable to Matthew's "house" (whose house it is then remains an open question). I don't say it's impossible, and thus far your attempt at harmonisation is as good as any. I just remark that while you do this you don't read Matthew or Luke as they are written. Instead you have to break them up and use the pieces together with your own additional paratext to have them fit into your own consistent puzzle. Through this operation both Matthew's and Luke's inner narrative consistency is lost imo.
• 

  hmike

  Just a reflection on my own silly life. Or the very subtle nature of the "leaven of hypocrisy".

  When I started to question the JW doctrine, I realised that there were some subjects I had always been uneasy with, although I ;had never really admitted it to myself before.

  Did I ever believe? Had I been asked I would have answered yes, without any conscience of lying. Yet looking back I can't help thinking ;that sometimes ;my sincerity was very superficial.

  This of course is not limited to JWs. Being stuck in a militant, teaching or apologetic position always leads you to appear more convinced than you really are. The cost of any admission of doubt, even to yourself, ;gets higher and higher ;until it is ;too high to afford. And while we are there we can ;hurt ourselves badly.

  That sounds like what the JW org. does — discouraging questions and anything that hints of doubt.

  See, I don' t agree with that. Honest questions and expressions of doubt are normal and should be respected and openly discussed, either in a group or on an individual basis, whichever is best for those asking. Any church or organization should provide an environment that supports asking questions, discussing troubling issues or new ideas. These issues should be addressed intelligently and with compassion, not be suppressed, ignored, discouraged, or rebuked. These latter responses come from fear and the fact that those in authority have their own doubts that have never been dealt with. One poster here brought up an issue which he had presented to a Christian co-worker and had received the reply, " Just believe. " I wrote that was a poor response on the part of the co-worker. Charles Darwin left the church in search of answers because his probing questions were brushed aside by someone in the clergy. This kind of treatment is disrespectful of the honest seeker and does a disservice to everyone involved.

  Understand, first of all, that I' m different than many here in that I didn ’ t come out of a repressive, controlling organization that misrepresented facts. I ’ ve always been free to question and examine and determine my own path.

  I fell everyone should be open to new understanding. I consider myself to have been a Christian for over 40 years (since about age 11). I ’ ve made all my major decisions based on prayer and leading-- who to marry, where to live, what job to take-- and I ’ ve seen a lot that conforms to what I see the Bible teaches. In that time, I ’ ve developed a perspective that I ’ m comfortable with, yet I ’ m still open to new information, and I ’ m willing to modify my perspective if the evidence warrants.

  Understand that over this long period, I ’ ve actually developed a personal relationship of sorts with this God, to the extent it is possible. So, if I stand up for Him or what I understand He has said, it ’ s not from a need to be right or justified, or to defend some organization I belong to and have invested in. It ’ s the same as if I defended a close friend or family member, or anyone I felt was deserving of defense.

  I ’ ll let you in on something else: I' m even at peace with the possibility that I may be wrong. Following the teachings of the Bible changed my life. I was headed for a troubled life, but the Bible kept me from drugs when my friends were into them, and it kept me out of other troubles I know I would have had. It has helped me to be a better son, a better husband, a better father, a better employee, a better citizen, on and on. Its wisdom helped me make a lot of good decisions. It ’ s been a dynamic force in my life, and I can trace the problems I do have to not following it better. (And God was not punishing me. It ’ s just a case of not following the instructions and getting the consequences. If someone is prescribed a medicine for a problem and they take it according to the directions, they receive the benefit. If they don ’ t take it according to the instructions, they don ’ t get the benefit. It ’ s as simple as that to me. God wants to keep us from what ’ s out there, but we have to follow the instructions to get the benefit. If we don ’ t, there are often consequences. Sometimes God protects us from them, or removes the effects, but sometimes not to, sometimes maybe to serve as a reminder and example. I have no problem with that.) So, in any case, it was a good decision for me to follow this God in this life, even if that' s all it counted for.

  Anyway, I hope this gives you a better understanding of my perspective. I have a lot of respect for scholars like you, Leolia, and Pete. I wish I had your resources and depth of knowledge of the ancient literature and languages, and reading posts like the three of you put up has encouraged, and even challenged me to dust off some old books, showing me how much I enjoyed this type of study. But if I see another side to your statements, I hope you' ll understand when I speak up. My opinions don ’ t come out of a vacuum, nor am I just parroting someone else, I actually have studied this out somewhat, and I have lived it.

  Regards,

  Mike
• 

  Narkissos

  Thanks for those kind words Mike.

  I enjoyed the discussion and appreciate where you come from -- had our lives been different we would be other people, wouldn't we?

  One sentence stopped me though:

  God wants to keep us from what ’ s out there

  Does he? Of course you cannot know, but to an xJW this sounds very JW-like. That's not exactly the picture I got of the God of Jesus Christ...
• 

  hmike

  One sentence stopped me though:

  God wants to keep us from what ’ s out there

  Narkissos,

  I'm thinking along the lines of Deut. 10:12-14, for example (from the NIV):

  "And now, O Israel, what does the LORD your God ask of you but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your god with all your heart and with all your soul, and to observe the LORD's commandments and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good?

  And Jesus taught his disciples to pray "deliver us from evil."

  Contrary to what some people--even here in the forum--believe, I don't see God as getting enjoyment, or even desiring to see evil and destruction come on people, even though bad stuff does happen. The wisdom in the Scriptures is meant to put us in the best position we can be.

  By the way, I didn't intend to get involved in this thread until I saw the comment by LouBelle. I wasn't sure what she meant, so I thought I should check her profile statement. I got the impression of a sweet young lady who had finally broken free of the WTS and was enjoying new-found freedom to worship God in her own way. I took her comment in the thread to mean that she was troubled by the one-sided positions taken and it was a threat to her new joy. There was no way I was going to let that pass without a fight.
• 

  peacefulpete

  I am late to respond but for the record, those that attempt to find place for the Bethlehem story in history usually postulate a tiny village so insignificant that it went without notice. Both the lack of historical and archaeological evidence for it's existance at that early date and the silence about the mass murder of boys are explained away with this logic. However the NT story calls it a "city" using a Greek word that doe not mean a few farms in a circle. Also the story has Bethlehem as having a tabernacle, something very unlikely for a small town if not completely anachronistic (another discussion). Also the birth narrative has Herod declaring the death of all boys in Bethlehem "in all it's districts". Surely the author of this fictional midrash did not have a small hamlet in mind.
• 

  Narkissos

  However the NT story calls it a "city" using a Greek word that doe not mean a few farms in a circle. Also the story has Bethlehem as having a tabernacle, something very unlikely for a small town if not completely anachronistic (another discussion).

  Hmm... do you mean Nazareth (a polis in Matthew 2:23) and its synagogue (Luke 4:16)?
• 

  peacefulpete

  Damn you Narkissos. You always catch me. Yes your right. But the districts detail still stands, No?