If Herod ordered the slaughter of all children in Bethlehem?

Question

Why doesn't Josephus mention it in his Antiquities or Wars? He meticulously detailed everything else, and Christians love to point to his books?

Why did no other Jewish scholar mention it?

Why is there no Roman record of it? Why is it never even hinted at until 80-120 years after the supposed event?

Why is it present in only one Gospel nativity, but missing from Luke?

Why is it never mentioned by Paul? Why does no one before the end of the First Century CE seem to know anything about it?

Or is it just another lovely tale of the slaughter of innocent children fabricated to show us the Hebrew God's love, like the fabricated stories of the slaughter of all Egyptian first born in Exodus?

You people really seem to go for that stuff.

Dumbest thing I've heard today.

So Stephen Hawking wrote a book specifically dealing with American History and didn't mention the Civil War?

Moron.

Apparently, according to some Christians, the government killing ten babies is hardly news worthy.

First idiot to bring up abortion wins a hat!

Answer 1

The Bible compilers thought that there wasn't enough violence in the Bible so they worked in an extra story.

By most Roman accounts, Herod did a decent job as the administrator of Judea.

Answer 2

Uhmm..... Did you know for a long time "scholars" even questioned the existence of Bethlehem at the time of Christ? It was a very tiny city at the time, naturally there would have been very few children to kill in the first place. It wasn't a massive slaughter like most people think. Besides, Herod was known as a very cruel person, killing a couple kids was probably nothing new back then. Why WOULD Paul mention it? Paul does not really mention anything of the life of Christ, just the importance of it. Paul doesn't write a gospel.

The fact that it is missing from other gospels is almost more evidence for it - it was a really insignificant slaughter. Very few children were killed, and even that was nothing in those days.

Answer 3

I'm amazed at the conclusion you draw: Because a particular event is not accounted for in a particular volume of work, you draw the conclusion that it did not happen?

The Civil War isn't mentioned in Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" either. Does that mean the Civil War did not occur?

More to the point though, what is really your point in asking these questions? I don't believe it's for your own education. You seem to have all the answers before you even ask the question. Your "additional details" confirm this.

If you want a soapbox to proclaim how stupid you think Christianity (or any other group you choose to look down upon) is, I suggest you go to a forum that's appropriate for that, and stop using Answers as a soapbox.

I'm happy to answer any questions that are posted here about my religion (Christian and Lutheran) but I would ask that you treat me with the same respect that I treat you. I will never put down your decision to reject Christianity, and I would appreciate you not putting down my decision to accept it.

EDIT: Thank you for illustrating my point. I hope that you'll learn how to have a DISCUSSION where you can offer differing viewpoints without insulting the other party.

Answer 4

Since you asked the question, keep watching the news. Archaeologist will soon find the bones of those little children.

As far as Josephus, have you read the book? I came away from reading it knowing that Josephus missed many things.

Of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, we are given their highlights of what God wanted them to say.

You know, I'm embarrassed about our President and Monica Lewinsky. I try not to mention this too often. A nation killing innocent children is nothing to be broadcasted. I wish I could wipe out the fact that America aborts unborn children. I live with this horror everyday.

Answer 5

Bethlehem was a very small town. Herod slaughtering all the babies amounts to probably less than thirty kids and thirty is probably being generous. That was no big deal, especially in ancient times. The only reason the Bible records it is because they were trying to kill Jesus. You would have to ask Luke why he didn't include it and as for Paul, he was writing about how to live as a Christian in all of his writings, so he didn't need to mention this story.

Your dating of the gospels is most likely false. The early Church, who were closest to the time of the actual events, mostly taught that Matthew was the first gospel written. I'll take their word over anyone from the ninteenth century, who says that Mark was written first. We know that Luke wrote his gospel to a man named Theophilus (Luke 1:3). After this, he wrote the book of Acts (1:1-11) to the same man. The book of Acts ends with Paul still alive. Paul was probably killed in about A.D. 64 under the Emperor Nero. This means that Luke was written before A.D. 64 and Matthew was written before Luke, which nullifies your "Why does no one before the end of the First Century CE seem to know anything about it?" This also places two gospels within 31 years of Christ's death and resurrection; at a time when there would've been eyewitnesses, both friendly and hostile, to the events the gospel writers recorded. And if you can't prove that Exodus was fabricated, and give your source, then you should take the word of Moses, because he witnessed it and you didn't.

By the way, I read your response to my answer about Matthew and Luke contradicting each other. My response was wrong. I hadn't realized that before but I've looked again and I have a new theory. The angel appeared to Joseph some time after the wise men departed. My guess is that the wise men came right around the time that Jesus was born. They probably stayed a while, then left, maybe a few days before Jesus was presented in Jerusalem because Mary and Joseph were going to Jerusalem so the wise men decided to leave at about the same time. Jerusalem takes at least a few days to reach from Nazareth and also from Bethlehem. The wise men had met with King Herod before they came to Bethlehem, so he's waiting for them to come back and tell where Jesus is. It's while Herod is waiting for the wise men to come back that Jesus is presented, right under his nose. He has no idea that Jesus is the threat to his rule that he is looking for. Then Mary and Joseph go back to Galilee. Herod is furious when he finds out that the wise men lied to him and they aren't coming back. He sends soldiers to Bethlehem because he thinks that Jesus and His family are still there. The night of the Bethlehem massacre, God tells Joseph in a dream to leave because Bethlehem isn't too far from Nazareth, and the soldiers are faster than he is, so he needs a good head start to make it out of Israel to Egypt. This is "when [the wise men] were departed" (Matthew 2:13) so there is no contradiction. Consider this, if the family left by night from Bethlehem, the same night that the soldiers came to Bethlehem, there is a good chance that the soldiers would see them running and chase them down and kill Jesus. Anyone who's ever gone on vacation or had to move with their family knows that soldiers can move faster than families because families have women and children who take a while to move. :) If they left from Nazareth that night, there is no chance that the soldiers would catch them because the soldiers are in Bethlehem, which is out of sight from Nazareth.

Ancient people were not as precise as we are today so the history found in the Bible can be hard to follow. Also, we Christians believe that the Bible doesn't contradict itself. I found a book called "Alleged Bible Contradictions" in the library of my seminary school and I'm not sure who the author was and I didn't write the page either but it really doesn't matter because the point is still good. The author said:
"If it so happened that everything was in perfect agreement and this agreement...was all very obvious, right on the surface as it were, then skeptics would immediately seize on this as evidence of collaboration or forgery. The apparent contradictions...serve the purpose of refuting this kind of objection."

Apparent contradictions also serve the purpose of causing the Christian, like me, to study the Bible closely to try to figure out why there is an apparent conflict. This invites spiritual growth. I can thank you for that.

Answer 6

First of all you couldn't even get your critique right. It was the slaughter of all male children under 2. Let's see...all children....male children under 2. After thinking about it real hard I think there's a difference.

Why is it never mentioned elsewhere? Bethlehem was a little town. The number of males under 2 might be as low as 20. Such an event would certainly make papers today, but in 1st century journalism might not have made it.

Answer 7

What we do know about Herod?...he was jealous and often killed to protect his position killing even his own children.
Suetonius wrote, "There had spread all over the East
an old and established belief that it was fated for men coming from
Judea at that time to rule the world".
Now considering this fact that Herod had killed his own sons and his brother in law because he considered them a threat to his throne. Josephus does record this.
add it all up my friend if a King kills his family to protect his throne and hears the word there is a man going to be born who would be King ..he would react kindly to this stranger?
Herod had his sons murdered his brother in law killed ordered the massacres of rabbis...and definitely heard of the coming of a King and this man did nothing?

Answer 8

I remember reading, once upon a time, that there was some doubt that Herod even existed during Jesus' lifetime. Don't know about that but I do remember seeing multiple reports that nothing else is written about 'the slaughter of the innocents'

Answer 9

Bethlehem was a small villiage. How many boys under 2 could be in a small villiage at any given time. It wasn't a massive slaughter of thousands of kids. It was could've been less than 10 babies, not something to rank as a huge news event. Just guessing, but was any villiage all that big then? Yes, they had more kids than we do today, but I don't think it was as big a number as we traditionally think about.

Answer 10

Shame