appears Only in the Book of Matthew, and nowhere else in historical records?
I mean, surely the Romans would've made a note of the 'King of Judea, a friend of Rome' ordering the massacre of the first born?
I thought it would've made the headlines all around the known world, given that Jerusalem was, at the time, such an important trading port.
Could it be a fabrication?
Surely not...
2007-04-08 02:56:55 · 9 answers · asked by Orac 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Bethlehem at the time of Jesus' birth was a very small city with no more than a few thousand people. The total number of infants who would have been murdered under Herod's edict could be pretty low. Josephus, a major historian at the time, says that Herod murdered such a vast number of people, and was so cruel to those he didn't kill that the living considered the dead to be fortunate. 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 that there was hardly a day in his 36-year reign passed when someone wasn't sentenced to death, it just wouldn't be "headline news" anymore!
2007-04-08 03:12:59 · answer #1 · answered by thundercatt9 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Matthew was written after Mark as many of us (or not) know. Given the time after the life of Jesus (if there was one) that this was written it is not surprising that Additions to the story like this would have been made. The main reason for this story was probably to make a parallel to the story of Moses. Along with that we also have the "escape to Egypt" which makes him "come out of Egypt" as some had interpreted to be a prophetic prediction of the messiah. Matthew and Luke have some unique things in the New Testament. They are the ONLY books that have a virgin birth story and I believe they are the only accounts that mention a birth in Bethlehem if I'm not mistaken. Funny that they both have a genealogy of Jesus and that those said genealogies completely contradict each other. It is also believed by some that the resurrection story may have been an addition to Mark's gospel made at a latter date. I could go on forever about this. Sorry so long.
2007-04-08 05:12:50 · answer #2 · answered by Atheist Dave 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you suggesting that something written down could be incorrect? There must be a simple explanation. Maybe Herod had mind-control satellites in space which blocked out all memory of the event, but Matthew was immune because he was in a cave at the time?
By the by, Herod wasn't just a 'friend of Rome', he was an actual Roman who converted to Judaism. That was actually quite common; at one point 10% of the empire was Jewish.
2007-04-08 03:02:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Abdul, Herod wasn't Roman, he was Idumaean - his grandfather (father?) had been forced to convert to Judaism under John Hyrcanus, the Maccabean. Which always makes me wonder why the Israelites never wove tartan, but that's a whole other story.
2007-04-08 03:11:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Maybe the other guys were away, having a break on the beach at the Dead Sea. Perhaps swapping stories like "Biggest Liar' contests. They must have missed out on this breaking news and Matt wanted to keep the scoop to himself when they all got together at the pub later that week.
2007-04-08 03:02:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why would it have been such a big deal? Bethlehem was only a small town and it was in Herod's granted territory.
Herod was well known for his cruelty. He executed several people who he though posed a threat to his power, so this would not be out of touch for him.
2007-04-08 03:06:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, the Bible has the sun standing still in the sky, seas parting, and plagues that go unreported any where else. It seems that this only proves sloppy record keeping in the ancient world. What else could it be?
PS Is Myth fabrication?
2007-04-09 03:08:20 · answer #7 · answered by Herodotus 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What do historic records instruct? There are historic records that Thomas Jefferson replaced right into a loving and truthful husband that in simple terms fathered six babies. yet DNA proves diverse.
2016-11-27 03:23:09 · answer #8 · answered by foecking 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. I think they ate the rice paper it was written on.
2007-04-09 01:21:50 · answer #9 · answered by peppermint_paddy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋