Is the Slaughter of the Innocents just a myth?

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

AS CHRISTMAS approaches, Christians around the world remember the events leading up to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. We celebrate many things: Of course, the love of God in Christ, as well as the beauty of the story, the sanctity of the life of the unborn, the faithfulness of all those who faithfully obeyed (what would I have done if I were Joseph?), and perhaps more things besides these. But Christians are not he only ones preparing for Christmas. In the United States, atheists are spreading the cheer by erecting billboards deriding Christianity as a myth or a fairy tale, and it is one of those times of the year (along with Easter) when proponents of liberal theology or anti-Christian thought seem to get a special pleasure from peddling articles, documentaries (in the loosest sense of the word) and books about the myths Christians allegedly believe.

Most of the things we Christians remember are very nice, traditional Christmas story fodder: The visit of an angel to Mary, Joseph’s dream, wise men from the East with their gifts, Shepherds out in the field and the chorus of angels, and the birth of the Saviour in a manger. But then there’s the “slaughter of the innocents.” That’s not quite as nice. The event is traditionally remembered on the 28th of December. The wise men told King Herod that they were looking for the king who had just been born. Herod was filled with insecurity and asked them to return to him after they had met this new king and tell him where he could go to meet him also. When the wise men did not return to him, Herod flew into a rage and ordered the death of the male children in Bethlehem under the age of two, to make sure he snuffed out this would-be king.

And here is where one of the regular sceptical lines of comment appears in time for Christmas. Surely that would be a massive slaughter. Why didn’t this bloodbath make the news? How come nobody wrote about it? The fact that we have no record of this nasty episode shows that it’s pure myth, just like most of the other stuff in the Gospels. Right?

But this is much too hasty. It is the objection of a person sitting in front of a computer screen in modern New Zealand, Australia, Britain or America, with no understanding of the purported situation about which he is asking. I mentioned this some years ago while reviewing a sceptical documentary by Bryan Bruce. In the first place we do have a record of this event, namely in the New Testament, which is a source that is more likely than most to care about what happened because of why it happened. Not every killing became a matter of public record, only those that had some reason to be recorded, such as these. It is unreasonable to reject out-of-hand every source that is of Christian origin. The Christians are the ones who would have been more likely to keep a record of this event than any other group, and it is only bias that rejects the source just if that source is a New Testament document.

What’s more, to infer that this was some sort of very large-scale slaughter with hundreds of babies being killed is mistaken. If you’re going to pontificate about what sort of evidence we ought to have, at least check! Have a look at the BBC’s brief article on King Herod. The author sets up the problem, namely why wasn’t a massacre like this recorded by historians like Josephus? And as the author explains, there is a fairly good reason:

It seems difficult to imagine such a massacre was not mentioned by Josephus, a first-century historian who described other events in Herod’s life. One could be a sceptical of Matthew’s account of a massacre of infants.

In fact, demographic clues from first century Palestine reveal that Bethlehem was a small village, with a population between three hundred and a thousand. Experts estimate that, at any given time, the number of babies under the age of two would be only between seven and twenty. So numbers alone may be the reason why Josephus does not mention the murders.

Grisly though it may have been, the killing of perhaps ten children – in a world without mass media or Youtube – would probably not be deemed to be historically important. Sadly, such killings happen in parts of the world now, in small places that are not even on our radar, that we never hear about and will not be read about by generations to come. But lack of reference to the slaughter of the innocents in the work of major historians is to be expected.

ASIDE: Others raise the more radical allegation that Bethlehem never existed at all in the first century. What is it with claims like this – Jesus never existed, King David never existed, Bethlehem never existed. Not content with moderate criticism, some people always have to jump in the deep end (generally lacking the ability to swim). Texts in the Bible and the Amarna Letters refer to the town’s existence during the period in question. Although not strictly required (especially given that we’re talking about a small place), it’s nice to know  that archaeological evidence for Bethlehem’s ancient existence has now been found.

Glenn Peoples

Similar Posts:

If you liked this content, feel free to buy me a beer!

11 thoughts on “Is the Slaughter of the Innocents just a myth?

  1. Did not King Herod the Great order the execution of all babies two years AND UNDER (which was presumably measured from the time of his order)? Inasmuch as he knew precisely when the wise men saw the star (a sign telling them WHEN Jesus was born) why would he not kill only those born near the time Jesus was born? In other words, why kill babies who had just been born (unless he was doing it out of spite)? I can only guess at how the Roman Emperor would look at Herod’s Infant Execution order “after action report”. But I, for one, do not believe Herod ever sent such a report for he did not commit such an atrocity. If Luke is true, baby Jesus was taken back to Nazareth within weeks after his birth; so when the Roman soldiers of Matthew’s Gospel showed up at the “house” where Jesus was born and was supposedly residing), no one was there. If Herod truly believed there was a Baby King born in Bethlehem would he not likely have had his soldiers covertly follow the wise men there in order to find where the the holy family was located and would have had them kill the young child Jesus, the wise men, Joseph, Mary and the sheep herders if he could locate them. Is an honest person supposed to believe a King like Herod) would assist wise men go worship another king?

    1. I am still waiting for an apologist to reply to my comment and answer the questions raised and do so without resorting to adhominem attacks. More specifically, explain to me why Jesus’ parents would have taken their baby up to the lion’s den (i.e. Jerusalem, where King Herod the Great resided) within weeks after his birth. Well, if they cannot answer this question then I will for them. Luke recounts that Jesus was born circa 6 CE when there was no longer a King Herod the Great (he kicked the bucket circa 4 BCE) and his son Archelus was at that time finishing his last corrupt and incompetent ten-year reign as the tetrarch. Finally explain how a young child Jesus could be brought back into Palestine (from Egypt) by his parents when Archelaus was on the Throne (according to Matthew) when these same parents were bringing their baby Jesus (only weeks old) to the Holy Temple in Jerusalem? Both of these contradictory accounts cannot be true (historical) but both can be concocted stories which is precisely what I “believe” they are. Moreover, even if one account was true then this means the gospels are not the inerrant and infallible word of God as apologists claim without proof. But don’t aim your arrows at me for I did not write these stories; I was only reading and trying to make sense of them. Surely if the Lord of Hosts, the Most High God, had anything to do with selecting, ordaining, commissioning and inspiring errant humans to write gospels as his legal, scribal agents he would not have allowed them to IMPEACH Him by composing such contradictory stories as we find in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The truth is we cannot find a shred of evidence to prove that the Most High God selected, ordained and commissioned one soul to write a gospel, For goodness sakes, Luke even told us he wrote his gospel because “it seemed good” for him to do so as opposed to being commissioned by the Most High God. Let us not forget we do not even have competent and substantial, clear and convincing evidence to establish know with any degree of certainty who wrote the gospel dubbed “Matthew” or the gospel dubbed “Luke”.

    2. “But I, for one, do not believe”

      With respect, I don’t really think personal incredulity should be taken as a serious challenge. That’s probably the reason the apologists you refer to haven’t taken the time to engage with this objection. I don’t know where you got your information about timing. But the fact that Herod decreed the killing of boys aged under two gives us reason to think that, based on what he learned from the Magi, Jesus was born roughly two years prior to the decree. Plus, overactions, power mad leaders, it’s hardly surprising.

      As for the flight into Egypt, there’s precious little in the Gospel narratives to indicate timeframes. A most likely series of events is: Jesus was born. Then very soon after, the family visits the Temple in Jerusalem. Then some time later, who knows when, weeks, months, maybe a year, the Magi visit him. Because of what Herod was going to do and the divine warning, Jesus’ family flees to Egypt. When they return, they settle in Nazareth. Luke skips over the flight into Egypt, just as Matthew skips over the presentation in the temple. But there really isn’t much of an interesting objection to the accounts here.

  2. I suppose you have not heard of the word IMPEACHMENT which refers to destroying the credibility of evidence based on contradictions which are irreconcilably different. My incredulity does nor count for anything but what does count is the evidence on which I based my incredulity. Not only is the fable of the killing of the innocents absurd and not supported in any extra-biblical evidence, it is made impossible by Luke’s story which has Jesus’ father and mother taking their baby up to the Temple and the place where this supposed baby killer resided. Go on believing this hogwash if it makes you feel good as an apologist and leave those of us who are truth seekers to our beliefs or in this case our disbeliefs. Both of these accounts cannot be true but both can be false. Jesus was most likely born in Nazareth. Yes, indeed. “I, for one, do not believe this fairy tale”. But it is not my disbelief which matters at all; quite to the contrary, it is the evidence on which I base my belief that this story is as bogus as a three dollar bill.
    good bu

    1. “it is made impossible by Luke’s story which has Jesus’ father and mother taking their baby up to the Temple and the place where this supposed baby killer resided”

      Hi Wendell. Did you know that this presentation in the temple was shortly after Jesus’ birth but, as discussed previously, the edict of King Herod was a couple of years later? So your remark about the killing of the children being “made impossible” by Jesus’ parents taking him to the Temple is just not true.

  3. But my remark is true based on the evidence and a correct reading of it. You fail to realize that the Matthewan Jesus was born when King Herod the Great (KHTG) was still alive. (He died circa 4 BCE.) In significant contradistinction, the Lukan Jesus was born circa, 6 CE, at a time when Archelaus had finished his ten-year rule as ethnarch of Samaria and Judea thus causing the need for the which Luke mentions. Notice that Matthew mentions no such census simply because there was none at that time; moreover, Jesus’ Father (Joseph) and his mother (Mariam) were residing in Bethlehem thus causing no need for them to travel from Nazareth. According to Matthew the first time the three set foot in Nazareth was after their sojourn in Egypt and after Archelaus had become ethnarch upon his father’s (KHTH’s) death. Hope this helps. The story of the killing of these innocents is but a fairy tale, a story concocted by Matthew which has no basis in fact or reality. But it does sound good to those who like a good fiction story,

    ,

    1. Wendell, your previous claim about why the slaughter of the innocents is impossible based on what Luke says was soundly refuted. You haven’t acknowledged this, but you are just frantically throwing out new and different arguments. Sit down and don’t expect further attention.

  4. Please explain where and when it was “soundly refuted” and who did the refuting. Luke provided us a very clear story recounting that Jesus was born in and around 6 CE or ten years after the death of King Herod the Great (or when his son Archelaus was ousted). Moreover, the Lukan Jesus was born in Bethlehem and was circumcised there; then within a matter of a few weeks after the purification of Jesus’ mother, his Father (Joseph) and his Mother (Mariam) took him to Jerusalem for his consecration in the Temple in Jerusalem So, it is Luke who has REFUTED Matthew’s fable of the killing of the innocents. The Lukan Jesus never even set foot in Egypt. Do you not believe Luke who said it seemed good for him to write an “ordered account” for Theophilus. Nice try but no cigar for you my friend. Anything is possible I suppose for there are many who honestly and sincerely believe that there are ET UFOs all over the place. King Herod the Great would have been the dumbest king on the planet to be killing babies fresh out of the womb when he delivered his so-called edict for he reportedly knew with certainty when Jesus was born and it was reportedly around a couple of years before his edict. Believe what you want but I will stick with the evidence and my reliance what I call common sense.

    1. I am not going to be repeating myself, Wendell. Thank you for your (repeated) comment, which seems to offer nothing new. You’ve had your say, which was already addressed. You’ve now made a new mistake (to add to the previous ones) in describing Herod “killing babies fresh out of the womb” in the Gospel account. That isn’t what happened in the Gospel account at all, and it just underscores the fact that you are regurgitating talking points you have heard, rather than being immersed in the subject. A couple of years old is not “fresh out of the womb.”

      I approved that comment of yours, but further satisfactions of your addiction will not be approved, Wendell. Start a blog. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available