Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find nothing to disagree with in that post. Except perhaps Roman historians might have overlooked such an atrocity, but I would have expected Jewish writers to pick it up. I must look up sources on Herod and just who recorded his deeds.
That's a good idea and very interesting, please let us know what you find out.
In Matthew 2:16-18, a large-scale infanticide by Judean prefect, Herod, is described in some detail. However, according to my readings, the consensus among ancient Near East historians is that the entire story is a work of fiction. Most notably, there exists a paucity of historical documentation and oral tradition about an event that would have been supremely newsworthy in any era of human history. Even Josephus, who made a lifestyle of chronicling Herod's abuses, failed to so much as mention it.
Can anybody offer insight?
Don't forget that a lot of early Christians are Jews. They will notice if it doesn't make sense to them.
Don't forget that a lot of early Christians are Jews. They will notice if it doesn't make sense to them.
Yes, but that wouldn't mean that a historian wouldn't record them.
Particularly for a historian with a certain bias (and most people have various biases) - in this case, Josephus himself being a Jew - if it were anything more than a rumor/mythology by that time, leave alone a fact, then it almost certainly would have been recorded.
Historians of ancient times did not always rely on recorded documents (sometimes, there simply weren't any). Tradition that had been passed down could have been perceived as fact, of good sources (even oral sources) were there. But we don't even see the "Slaughter of the Innocents" inadvertently put into Jospehus' histories in this way.
It just isn't there at all. And Josephus, as a historian and as a Jewish individual, would have had no reason to leave it out if it had actually happened (or, as I said, if at least there were a firm, traceable tradition of it from others who would have been considered reliable sources).
The Celebration of the Jews called Purim is still celebrated today and originated in Queen Esther's day as found in the book of Esther. It celebrates the salvation by God from the Jews being wiped out by that evil Haman.
Also, where in the Bible does it say God ordered the Jews to kill kittens and puppies? Just curious.
How could they be complete when after they fought with the Midianites that many years later Gideon had to fight with them again?
Well, when Joshua sacked the city of Ai, they killed everything and everyone except the cattle.
When Joshua destroyed Jericho, same deal except there, the Israelites even killed the cows.
God told Joshua to do that.
So unless both these cities (as well as others) were completely devoid of puppies and kittens, Joshua and his evil Army of Darkness killed them, too.
Ah, the old 'Atheists are biased so we needn't listen to anything they say' ploy. Sorry, that doesn't wash any more than 'maybe Luke, John and Mark left it out as they didn't think it important' excuse.
It's a valid perspective since atheist apply a more strict measure of accepting the Bible as history than any other recorded history. With that kind of measurement, you would have to say ANY historical event is possible fiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Matthew obviously had heard that Herod was a murderous thug. He may have heard that he was murderous towards his own relatives (1) but in any case having him a threat to a Royal pretender was the obvious reason to get Joseph and his family out of Judea. Of course to Galilee wouldn't do as Herod ruled there, too. So to Egypt is a good idea especially as some barely relevant OT quotes can be made to look like fulfilled prophecy.
Matthew had nothing to gain by making up a story that could have been exposed as false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
But of course it won't do to have them return to Bethlehem after Herod's death, so this fear of Archelaus is the reason to get them into Galilee - where Herod Antipas Ruled. And all this time, Luke had them simply go back home to Nazareth after a fortnight or so in Judea.
Given that Mark and John have none of this, Luke's story it totally contradictory and no mention of this atrocity in any other gospel, history or any source whatsoever and I'd say your post is just another example of Theists needing the story to be true-when to anyone without their eyes made of stained glass, it is a fabrication.
Each gospel presents the life of Christ from a different perspective. Just like witnesses to a crime scene will report the event differently. This makes the accounts more human, and more likely to be authentic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Bible apologists are never at a loss to conjure up any kind of fantastic story to get around this or that problem. In fact I find it hard to believe that infanticide of even a few kids would be completely passed over by historians willing to find anything to make Herod look like a monster.
But in fact it isn't the lack of Historical mention that really makes me suspicious - it is that the whole Gospel approach to the nativity is so utterly discrepant, the two nativities differ so much and Matthew produces many other supposed events that are not only un-mentioned by the other writers- when they describe the same events, but are pretty incredible in themselves.
Do you believe they were just so dumb and stupid that these men couldn't see what you claim are contradictions in their fictional accounts? But if each gospel was identical, you would be using that as proof that it is not real eyewitness accounts.
It's a valid perspective since atheist apply a more strict measure of accepting the Bible as history than any other recorded history.
Because the Bible makes all kinds of fantastic claims without any corroboration from other historians of the time period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
With that kind of measurement, you would have to say ANY historical event is possible fiction.
Rarely, if ever, is an event considered historical fact if it is only written about in one singular book. Especially something as big as Herod's slaughterfest. And especially if the event is written in the same book that claims a snake talked or that you can breed striped goats by having them stare at vertical sticks all day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Matthew had nothing to gain by making up a story that could have been exposed as false.
True, that wouldn't make sense to make up a story that should have been easy enough to discredit. Although, if no one bothered to check out his story, the myth could very easily turn into a fact.
Each gospel presents the life of Christ from a different perspective. Just like witnesses to a crime scene will report the event differently. This makes the accounts more human, and more likely to be authentic.
I have heard this illustration used and never understood it. It is true that witnesses to a crime all have different perspectives to the event. And laying aside the issue that eyewitness testimony, even in criminal cases, is demonstrably inconsistent, easily influenced and manipulated, and colored by preconceptions and ideology, we still have an issue...
If there are three witnesses to a robbery, and they each recount the event with corroborating details that is evidence for their account of the crime. However if all three give very different accounts of the crime, even if they agree on some things, that is used to discredit them!
In our case they differ on so many things, the events surrounding Jesus' birth, formative experiences, the order in which events happened, who He appeared to and what he told them to do, that any reasonable person faced with this sort of testimony in a court of law would disregard this evidence... Slight variations in testimony are attributable to perspective and human memory. Glaring error points to fabrication...
In our case they differ on so many things, the events surrounding Jesus' birth, formative experiences, the order in which events happened, who He appeared to and what he told them to do, that any reasonable person faced with this sort of testimony in a court of law would disregard this evidence... Slight variations in testimony are attributable to perspective and human memory. Glaring error points to fabrication...
-NoCapo
Could you please (I'm being nice here) tell us how the four accounts contradict each other as to Jesus' birth? Maybe we can look at this together and see where the problem lies?
Because the Bible makes all kinds of fantastic claims without any corroboration from other historians of the time period.
How many historians do we have all their works, say from 2500 B.C.?
Quote:
Rarely, if ever, is an event considered historical fact if it is only written about in one singular book. Especially something as big as Herod's slaughterfest. And especially if the event is written in the same book that claims a snake talked or that you can breed striped goats by having them stare at vertical sticks all day.
It may have been a non-event to the populace of non-Jews. Maybe there were just 5 kids killed. Bethlehem was a tiny sleepy village off the beaten path back then.
Quote:
True, that wouldn't make sense to make up a story that should have been easy enough to discredit. Although, if no one bothered to check out his story, the myth could very easily turn into a fact.
To me it would seem very strange if the four writers of what we term the "gospels" were purposely just making up all sorts of things and not caring if anyone would call them on it. Most people would say: Well, if Matthew lied here, how can we trust him to tell us about Jesus' death, burial and resurrection?
I'm sure none of the writers were willing to damage such an incredible world shaking event such as Christ's death, burial and resurrection by making up bald faced lies.
Don't forget that a lot of early Christians are Jews. They will notice if it doesn't make sense to them.
That's right. If the locals in Israel knew the writer was lying concerning the killing of infants by Herod, they would never have made traction with the rest of their account of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. Why would the writers put such a grand historical event at risk by telling a little white lie? They wouldn't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Except perhaps Roman historians might have overlooked such an atrocity, but I would have expected Jewish writers to pick it up. I must look up sources on Herod and just who recorded his deeds.
