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.
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.
Not only does history know nothing about it- and it knows in fair detail about the doings of Herod, including much less shocking misdeeds - not one of the other evangelists know about it. Just as they know nothing about the opening tombs or the Roman guard or sinking Simon or the Shekel -eating fish.
I argue that the obvious conclusion is that Matthew invented some items of his material and the massacre is one of them.
For what reason? Well, because the way Matthew looks is that Joseph and his wife were Judeans, living in Bethlehem. It is clear that was their place of residence and Nazareth wasn't. So something is needed to shift them.
Herod's threat is the perfect reason for them to flee. Not to Nazareth as Herod's rule extended there. So over the border to Egypt is his solution. An event also unknown to the others, including Luke who seems to think that, after all the baby-stuff had been done, they toddled off back home to Nazareth.
Matthew, on the other hand, has them living in Judea for up to two years, because that is the age area Herod targets, according to Matthew and we know why- because Herod asked them when the star signifying the birth appeared. The answer has to be at least a year and probably more sice the wise men set out.
So, Herod dies in 4 BC and the family are told they can return. But obviously going back to Bethlehem is not an option, ostensibly because Herod's son is a threat but mainly because it isn't Nazareth. So Joseph is told to go to Galilee (where Herod Antipas was presumed to be no threat) and that the ended up in Nazareth was just luck. Although Matthew suggests some scriptural fulfillment in the punch - line of the nativity tale, to the effect that this is how Jesus came to be called a Nazarene.
So I offer the idea that the massacre was invented and for a very specific reason - so that Jesus was born in Bethlehem as required by messianic prophecy, but also had to be a Nazorean. The Herodian massacre was needed to get him to move.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-05-2014 at 02:51 PM..
It's an embellishment meant to establish veracity - if even Herod was afraid of the Messiah imminently coming, then the Jesus story must be the truth.
It's also the foreshadowing of a threat to Jesus in the story arc, in the form of the threatened establishment/ruling class.
If George Lucas were to invent a Jesus story, it would pretty much go just the way it went in the Gospels (except for John). You have the foreshadowing, along with a violent, exciting beginning. (Or alternately depending upon which Gospel, a "prequel"-type narrative that establishes the storyline as mysterious and unique.) Cut back to the "unlikely hero" scenario: a poor baby born in a manger. Perhaps an image or two (depending upon which Gospel) of the boy before he becomes an adult to cement that "this is no ordinary boy." In fact, this plot device is very common and plays upon a commonly cherished theme: an extraordinary person in ordinary surroundings - what will become of him? Then the emergence of the fully formed, now-adult hero. A series of quick and very startling events that capture the attention of The Anti-Heroes, who begin to close in in various scenes. First Climax: the hero is killed. There is much sorrow. Second Climax: the hero returns, giving the watcher (in this case, reader) the satisfaction of having "been right all along" about the hero. (Most book authors recommend two climaxes - again, a very common plot device. I forget the psychology behind this but as a writer, I've read of this device in nearly every piece on how to write a successful novel.) There is that final, rewarding thrill of seeing the hero succeed. The hero disappears into the sky. Close credits.
Well, anyway. No, it's not likely at all that the Slaughter of the Innocents happened.
killing the first born was not unknown then its not unknown now in china if its a girl.
KJV is not a history book its literature designed to teach morality which in this day and age is in short supply.
I have had to turn that post around in my head for sometime,but I think the way it goes is:
The idea of killing of firstborns was not unfamiliar, so Matthew got the idea from there. But historical accuracy (if it fails to stand up) can be sidelined in favour of the 'moral teaching guide' argument, which is off-topic and I will gleefully demolish in another thread.
At least Huck, you seem to have taken on board the pretty clear internal evidence that the massacre is not historical. We can do without, can't we, the dishonest rhetoric of 'were you there?' 'can you prove 100% that it couldn't possibly have happened?', or the well - worn 'witnesses don't always agree' excuse?
What we have here is fabrication and fabrication for a specific purpose-a mechanism to have Jesus (born in Bethlehem to fulfill the messianic requirements) shifted to Nazareth, just as Luke needs the mechanism of the 6 AD census to get Jesus from Nazareth into Bethlehem in order to fulfill messianic requirements.
I don't doubt that study of the various prophecies recited in Matthew 1 and 2 would reveal how he used OT script to help evolve his plot.
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?
Myth. Didn't happen. It's an obvious plot device in the story as Arequipa says in his post.
Eusebius* obviously didn't get the chance to insert anything about it in Josephus's works like he did those couple of lines about Jesus that look so out of place. I'm sure he would have if he thought he could get away with it.
(*I'm referring to 4th century bishop Eusebius, Emperor Constantine's spin doctor.)
killing the first born was not unknown then its not unknown now in china if its a girl.
KJV is not a history book its literature designed to teach morality which in this day and age is in short supply.
Why on earth would any rational 21st century person use the KJV (or any version) to 'teach morality'? Have you read the Bible lately?
Why on earth would any rational 21st century person use the KJV (or any version) to 'teach morality'? Have you read the Bible lately?
If he bothered to mention that particular version he's probably come under the influence of the KJV-only movement which says that not only does god inspire the Bible, but also a chosen translation for each language group. The KJV-only movement regards the KJV as the "inspired translation for the English-speaking peoples". In part it is based on technical arguments that see the Textus Receptus (on which the KJV was based) as the god-preserved manuscript, whereas Wescott and Hort, et. al., represent illegitimate revisionist corruptions thereof.
I highly doubt he made it up. Don't you think that people at the time would have known he made it up and therefore everything else he wrote would be discredited? Just because there is no corroborating documentation does not mean it didn't happen. There is a lot of history that is uncorroborated. That doesn't mean it is a lie.
"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
I will say at one time we didn't have any evidence for a lot of the things mentioned in the Gospels. Perhaps the story was made up, and not necessarily by the original writer of Matthew himself. Yet perhaps it did happen. One thing is for certain, it's hard to reconcile bits of information with Luke's account of Jesus' early history and Matthew's account.
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.
