Why no other evidence of the massacre of the babies?

[Guest]

http://www.carm.org/questions/massacre.htm

[Guest]

Keeping in mind that I am just a baby Christian, I am reading a book (The Case For Christ) by a fellow named Lee Strobel and he interviews a historian asking this question. I do not have the book with me at present, but the gist of the historian's answer was that Herod was a bit of a bloodthirsty sort to begin with, and that the slaughter would have been nothing out of the ordinary. Also that Bethlehem was an extremely small and not very populated place at the time.

Don't know if this helps, and I may be told to just sit back, shut up, and learn at any time...

[Guest]

Yes, this is in agreement with the link. Thanks Alembic!

[Guest]

http://www.carm.org/questions/massacre.htm

We do know that there are records of Herod murdering a number of people, including his own sons, whom he felt was threatening his position. These records come to us through Josephus, who took them from Nicholas of Damascus, Herod's scribe and historian.

What is curious is that Nicholas would have bothered to record a number of separate murders of a individuals by Herod, but would ignore the slaughter of innocent children in an entire town. Whether the Romans considered any town of Bethlehem too small and insignificant is irrelevant, because the records of Herod's atrocities come from his own historian. This historian went to lengths to describe a single murder; failing to note the murders of the entire town's children is out of character for Nicholas. While such an act would have not be inconsistent with Herod's personality, that doesn't prove it true; it only makes it believable.

Further casting doubt on the nativity story is the archeological evidence indicating that a Judean town of Bethlehem didn't even exist in the Herodian period or the 1st century.

[_JC]

jackal, please chronical this evidence if you don't mind. Bethlehem, according archeological reports I've seen, was a very small and insignificant town, which is important for a couple of reasons. For example, if the town was that tiny then how many of its inhabitants were under 2 years of age? Probably not many. You might want to note that the massacre of these children (how ever many there were) is only recorded in one gospel. So even among the Christians, this wasn't a pertinent issue. It's difficult to discuss this without sounding insensitive but there are plausible reasons why this would not have been recorded by contemporary historians. Some reasons have already been given.

Another thing that stands out to me is that Luke is so careful in detailing even the trade winds of the Mediterranian sea. Yet if he and Matthew had copied from a common source document (along with Mark) like liberals say then why did Luke leave something like the massacre out? The argument kind of works both ways. Both conservative scholars as well as liberals have to wrestle with these issues and neither side has an air-tight case.

[Guest]

jackal wrote: Further casting doubt on the nativity story is the archeological evidence indicating that a Judean town of Bethlehem didn't even exist in the Herodian period or the 1st century.

wasn't david from bethlehem?

TK

[Guest]

jackal, please chronical this evidence if you don't mind. Bethlehem, according archeological reports I've seen, was a very small and insignificant town, which is important for a couple of reasons.

In the reports I've read, archeologists have found evidence of habitation during the early iron age, up to about 500 BC (which may coincide with the Babylonian exile). Above that, there is evidence of habitation beginning in the early byzantinium period, around 4th century, and thereafter. Between that, there is nothing; no evidence of habitation.

Further, there is a Roman aqueduct, built in the 1st century, which brought water from the Solomon pools to Jerusalem. It passes through present day Bethlehem. In the design of that aqueduct, where it passed through a town, there was a water tower and three pools in which water was drawn off the aqueduct for that town. That design is found in a number of towns along the route of that aqueduct. It is also shown in the specifications of the aqueduct which survived. However, there is no evidence of a water tower or three pools where the aqueduct goes through or near bethlehem.

For example, if the town was that tiny then how many of its inhabitants were under 2 years of age? Probably not many.

If the town didn't exist, then probably none at all, which may be why neither Nicholas nor Josephus reported anything about it.

You might want to note that the massacre of these children (how ever many there were) is only recorded in one gospel. So even among the Christians, this wasn't a pertinent issue.

Or, just maybe, the story of the slaughter was unique to the imagination of the author now known as Matthew.

It's difficult to discuss this without sounding insensitive but there are plausible reasons why this would not have been recorded by contemporary historians. Some reasons have already been given.

Except the most likely one - that the story is pure fiction. The gospels seem to bend over backwards to create a Jesus character that represented a fulfillment of scripture. The virginal nativity narrative, for example, being a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. Matthew himself points out that the slaughter of the innocents is a fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:15. Did Matthew win the prize for the story fulfilling the most scripture?

Another thing that stands out to me is that Luke is so careful in detailing even the trade winds of the Mediterranian sea. Yet if he and Matthew had copied from a common source document (along with Mark) like liberals say then why did Luke leave something like the massacre out?

While "the liberals" (which by your characterization must include the catholic church and many moderate historians) recognize that Matthew and Luke based, or plagarize much of their gospels from Mark and from Q, they know that there are minor additional parts that are unique to both. Luke has the Emmaus narrative; Matthew has the slaugher of the innocents. Q was a sayings gospels, and would not have narratives like these. Whether Luke and Matthew fabricated these narratives or heard them second hand is unknown.

The argument kind of works both ways. Both conservative scholars as well as liberals have to wrestle with these issues and neither side has an air-tight case.

No, which makes discussions like this so much fun.

[_JC]

jackal, can you tell me where I can get a copy of this "Q" document because I've never seen it. I have, however, seen copies of the synoptics so perhaps (using your own standard) the document titled "Q" never existed. There isn't a shred of evidence it ever existed and no, the opinions of the Jesus Seminar don't count as evidence.

As far as liberal scholars, yes I most definitely include the Roman Catholic church in that camp. I would be most impressed by their conclusions if I didn't know the process they used in forming them. Both conservative and liberal scholars have the same historical documents to gather information from, yet reach different conclusions. Both sides are biased, but one of them must still be correct. Either the gospels are written by eyewitnesses or they were not.

I'm not anything close to an authority when it comes to archeology but I've read accounts contradicting the one you posted. Since this is not my field, I'll defer to the experts. The problem is... the experts don't agree.

[Guest]

JC, it is indeed questionable that a document "Q" ever existed. It's supposed existence is based entirely on a theory.

The following site can provide some reading for you on the topic:


http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q-exist.html

[Guest]

Some thoughts on the "slaughter of the innocents":

First, here are some facts about Bethlehem (source: http://www.ancientsandals.com/overviews/bethlehem.htm):

• The town of Bethlehem is situated on a prominent limestone ridge in the Hill Country of Judah about five miles south of Jerusalem. At an elevation of 2,500 feet, Bethlehem has a commanding view of the surrounding terrain.
• Bethlehem overlooks the major north-south highway that passes through the central Hill Country, connecting Shechem to Hebron and Egypt.
• Shepherding and agriculture drove the economy of Bethlehem. The fertile hill country surrounding the town supported cereal crops, vineyards and olive orchards, as well as abundant grazing land for sheep.
Historical and Biblical Significance
• Jacob’s wife, Rachel, died while giving birth to Benjamin during their journey southward from Bethel. She was buried somewhere north of Bethlehem along the main north-south route (Gen 35:19).
• Bethlehem played a part in the two events recorded in the last chapters of the book of Judges. Each provides an example of the debauchery and wickedness of the times. In the first account, a young Levite from Bethlehem agreed to serve as the personal priest of Micah, an Ephraimite, even though the priests were forbidden to serve individuals in this way (Judges 17-18). In the second account, Bethlehem was the home of the young concubine who was defiled and murdered by the men of Gibeah, causing a war between the tribe of Benjamin and the other tribes of Israel (Judges 19-20).
• In stark contrast to the wickedness that characterized the period of the Judges, the story of Naomi and Ruth provides evidence that some in Israel remained faithful to God. To escape a famine, Naomi and her husband, Elimelech left their hometown of Bethlehem with their two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, to go to Moab. While there, Naomi’s husband and both of her sons died. When the famine ended in Bethlehem, Naomi returned with her widowed daughter-in-law, Ruth. In the course of events, Ruth married a wealthy farmer, Boaz. Their great-grandson was David, the ancestor of the Messiah (Ruth 1:1, 2, 19, 22; 2:4; 4:11).
• Bethlehem was David’s birthplace and home, where he tended his father’s sheep on the surrounding hills (1 Sam 17:12, 15). It was in Bethlehem that Samuel found David and anointed him king over Israel (1 Sam 16:1-13).
• At an early period in David’s reign, Bethlehem had become a Philistine garrison (2 Sam 23:14; 1 Chr 11:16). The city was later fortified by Rehoboam, king of the Southern Kingdom (2 Chr 11:6).
• By the seventh century B.C., Bethlehem’s political and military importance had waned. Although Micah referred to Bethlehem as a small, insignificant city, he prophesied that "From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel"—Jesus, David’s "greater son" (Mic 5:2).
• A thousand years after David had shepherded his sheep on the hills of Bethlehem, one of his descendants, Jesus, was born in Bethlehem, in fulfillment of Micah’s prophecy. Joseph and Mary had returned to Bethlehem to register for a tax census because Bethlehem was in Judah, Joseph’s tribal home (Matt 2:1; Luke 2:1-7).
• Following the Magi’s visit, when he learned of the birth of a Jewish king, Herod "was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him" (Matt 2:3). This king had been born in the shadow of the Herodium, his palace, just three miles southeast of Bethlehem. With his typical ruthlessness, driven by paranoia, Herod ordered that all male babies in the vicinity of Bethlehem should be killed (Matt 2:16).

So, we have a place of great historical significance to the ancient Jews, in very close proximity to Jerusalem. I'm not sure which reports you've been reading because it is well established that Bethlehem was an inhabited location in the 1st century A.D.

Bethlehem was a small village about 6 miles Southwest of Jerusalem. It is difficult to be sure, but estimates of the population of Bethlehem at the time of Jesus range from 300 to 3,000. The number I read most often given is 1,000. The subgroup of males two and under might have been roughly two per hundred (I’m estimating this after looking at various census charts), so we’re talking about 6 to 60 boys, and most likely 20, not thousands or even hundreds.

Ancient history is filled with accounts of atrocities committed against innocents, which probably means there were countless more atrocities, the records of which did not survive to our time. In Tunis (formerly ancient Carthage) there is a Tophet cemetery that contains the remains of tens of thousands of children who were human sacrifices. Alexander Jannaeus, king of Judea from 103 BC to 76 BC, quelled a revolt at Jerusalem by slaughtering 6,000 civilians. On his return from a short exile into which he had been driven by the Pharisees, he caused 800 rebels to be crucified before him and their wives and children slaughtered. In the Roman Empire, abandonment and exposure of infants (particularly girls or handicapped babies) was a common practice. The cave temple at Elephants, in India, features an ancient sculptured likeness of a king represented with a drawn sword, and surrounded with slaughtered infant boys. The problem with continuing a list such as this is that one is overwhelmed with the abundance of examples.

Herod killed thousands during his reign, including his own sons. Judea had a long and brutal history of despotic rulers who practiced wholesale slaughter on the population (read up on Antiochus Epiphanes, for example).

According to one source (http://www.tektonics.org/qt/slaughtinn.html):

Although much has been made of the Slaughter of the Innocents - and indeed, any such event would be tragic - there is no reason to assume that it could be considered high on the list of Herod's atrocities in terms of scope or magnitude. How many boys aged two and under could there have been in and around the tiny city of Bethlehem?

Matthew does not give a number. Josephus says that Herod murdered a vast number of people, and was so cruel to those he didn't kill that the living considered the dead to be fortunate. Thus, indirectly, Josephus tells us that there were many atrocities that Herod committed that he does not mention in his histories - and it is probable that authorizing the killing of the presumably few male infants in the vicinity of Bethlehem was a minuscule blot of the blackness that was the reign of Herod. Being that the events of the reign of Herod involved practically one atrocity after another - it is observed by one writer, with a minimum of hyperbole, that hardly a day in his 36-year reign passed when someone wasn't sentenced to death. Herod probably died in March or April of 4 BC; the Slaughter would therefore have occurred during one of his last two years on earth. It is doubtful that Josephus recorded EVERY atrocity performed by Herod; if he had, his works would be rather significantly larger!

Herod was nowhere near the monster the likes of, say, Caligula. More importantly, he was careful to not offend Jewish religious sensibilities; Josephus records only two instances where pious Jews questioned him on such matters. [Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 19, 297] In Jewish eyes, Herod might have been a devil; but he was a nicer devil to have in charge than a Roman devil! The Slaughter of the Innocents, though, is something that fits in perfectly with the character of Herod. (Also, is it perhaps not too far a reach to wonder whether Herod - who had his own son assassinated - hired vigilantes of some sort to perpetrate the Slaughter, and that it was not connected to him until his death which was shortly thereafter, when it was too late for anyone to vent their anger on him?)

Let’s look at this another way. Go to the library and check out 10 books on Hitler. See how many of them mention a village in Czechoslovakia named Lidice and what took place there. By applying the same logic you used about Josephus’ silence regarding the Bethlehem slaughter, we might conclude that nothing occurred in Lidice, which would be a disservice to the 82 children who were slaughtered there on Hitler’s orders.

Matthew’s original audience (Jews in Judea) would know of the village of Bethlehem and find resonance with the account. “Rachel weeping for her children” is a reference to Jeremiah’s prophecy of the Israelites trudging past Rachel’s tomb in Bethlehem, on their way to Babylonian exile (Jer 31:15). But Jeremiah goes on to say “Your children will return to their own land” (Jer 31:17). A major theme throughout Matthew’s Gospel is that the Jewish people are in exile again (under Roman rule) and that Jesus has come to end the exile (though not through means of violent rebellion).

Luke’s Gentile audience, on the other hand, would have much less of a connection to Bethlehem, Jeremiah and such Exile language, which is probably why the "slaughter of the innocents" was not included in Luke's Gospel.

Regarding "Q":

"Q" is short for "quelle", which is German for "source" It is simplistic and naive to think that there was a single document which was "plagarized" for Matthew and Luke's Gospels (or Mark's for that matter). It would be more accurate to think of "Q" as the collected oral accounts, written accounts, creeds, hymns, etc. that were circulating around the early church prior to the Gospels being written. The Gospels certainly incorporated and codified this source material.