Q: Matthew 2:16 claims that Herod slaughtered all the male children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old and under. Isnt it unusual that no contemporary historians, including Josephus, mention this? Doesn't this indicate that the event never took place?
A: No. Heres why:
1. We dont know of very many first-century historians, other than New Testament authors, who were particularly interested in events in Judea. Except for Philo, who was more of a philosopher than a record-keeper, Flavius Josephus is pretty much THE first-century non-Christian Jewish historian. (This is one reason why those Dead Sea Scrolls are so helpful, and at the same time so frustrating!)
2. Bethlehem was not a big city. Though it was famous as the hometown of David, its influence must have been low in the days of Micah, given his description of it in Micah 5:2. The loss of its entire population of infant males would make the news for a few months. But it would not be a uniquely abhorrent event (except to the people of Bethlehem), even if 100 or even 200 infants were slaughtered, considering the much greater amount of people who were killed during the First Jewish Revolt. See the short essay at www.bbc.co.uk/religion/re...erod.shtml
3. History is written by historians, and all historians interpret events by selecting which events they consider worth writing about. Josephus could have used the Bethlehem-slaughter as an example of Herods ruthlessness (if he knew that Herod was responsible for it); on the other hand, Josephus provides several other examples of Herods ruthlessness, and may have thought that a wagonful of such stories would take a toll on the reader, especially if they /only/ show what a bad guy Herod was, without otherwise keeping the broader story of Jewish history moving.
So, it would not be surprising for Josephus to know about the slaughter of the innocents at Bethlehem, and Herods role in it, and still not mention it, due to a feeling that it just wasnt an important story. *If* Josephus regarded all events as equally worth recording, the objection But Matthews story is not mentioned by Josephus would have some weight, but Josephus, like any other journalist, did /not/ regard all news as worth recording, especially old news which illustrated an already-proven point.
Side-bar: Do you remember how many people were killed in the terrorist attacks in the USA that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001? Almost 3,000 people, yes. Do you remember how many people were killed in the earthquake in Bam, Iran, on Dec. 26, 2003? Why not? Because in just a few years time, journalists have shaped the collective memory of events; the Bam earthquake has already been mostly forgotten (except in Iran) -- since there has been a worse natural disaster since then. Similarly, as bad as the slaughter in Bethlehem was, it became overshadowed by other terrible things Herod did, and by other violent events.
3. Matthew was aware that Herod was responsible for the slaughter of the innocents. But that does not mean that it was common knowledge.
Btw, here we have another typological parallel between Gods activity at the national level (in the history of Israel) and at the personal level (in the life of Christ) -- Pharaoh ordered the deaths of Israelite male babies and Herod did something similar, but in both cases the deliverer (Moses, in Exodus -- Jesus in Matthew) survived and outlived the wicked ruler. Lest someone object, A-ha! Symbolic parallels! A plain sign that Matthew was /inventing/ narratives to flesh out theological concepts!, I include a link to a lengthy but very worthwhile essay by James Kiefer which covers that objection, and some related points, at elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/c...ancy2.html . Among several excellent points in that essay, I thought the anecdote about Hitler and the non-reports of the massacre at Lodice was outstanding.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
P.S. The number of deaths in the 2003 earthquake in Bam was over 26,000.
A: No. Heres why:
1. We dont know of very many first-century historians, other than New Testament authors, who were particularly interested in events in Judea. Except for Philo, who was more of a philosopher than a record-keeper, Flavius Josephus is pretty much THE first-century non-Christian Jewish historian. (This is one reason why those Dead Sea Scrolls are so helpful, and at the same time so frustrating!)
2. Bethlehem was not a big city. Though it was famous as the hometown of David, its influence must have been low in the days of Micah, given his description of it in Micah 5:2. The loss of its entire population of infant males would make the news for a few months. But it would not be a uniquely abhorrent event (except to the people of Bethlehem), even if 100 or even 200 infants were slaughtered, considering the much greater amount of people who were killed during the First Jewish Revolt. See the short essay at www.bbc.co.uk/religion/re...erod.shtml
3. History is written by historians, and all historians interpret events by selecting which events they consider worth writing about. Josephus could have used the Bethlehem-slaughter as an example of Herods ruthlessness (if he knew that Herod was responsible for it); on the other hand, Josephus provides several other examples of Herods ruthlessness, and may have thought that a wagonful of such stories would take a toll on the reader, especially if they /only/ show what a bad guy Herod was, without otherwise keeping the broader story of Jewish history moving.
So, it would not be surprising for Josephus to know about the slaughter of the innocents at Bethlehem, and Herods role in it, and still not mention it, due to a feeling that it just wasnt an important story. *If* Josephus regarded all events as equally worth recording, the objection But Matthews story is not mentioned by Josephus would have some weight, but Josephus, like any other journalist, did /not/ regard all news as worth recording, especially old news which illustrated an already-proven point.
Side-bar: Do you remember how many people were killed in the terrorist attacks in the USA that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001? Almost 3,000 people, yes. Do you remember how many people were killed in the earthquake in Bam, Iran, on Dec. 26, 2003? Why not? Because in just a few years time, journalists have shaped the collective memory of events; the Bam earthquake has already been mostly forgotten (except in Iran) -- since there has been a worse natural disaster since then. Similarly, as bad as the slaughter in Bethlehem was, it became overshadowed by other terrible things Herod did, and by other violent events.
3. Matthew was aware that Herod was responsible for the slaughter of the innocents. But that does not mean that it was common knowledge.
Btw, here we have another typological parallel between Gods activity at the national level (in the history of Israel) and at the personal level (in the life of Christ) -- Pharaoh ordered the deaths of Israelite male babies and Herod did something similar, but in both cases the deliverer (Moses, in Exodus -- Jesus in Matthew) survived and outlived the wicked ruler. Lest someone object, A-ha! Symbolic parallels! A plain sign that Matthew was /inventing/ narratives to flesh out theological concepts!, I include a link to a lengthy but very worthwhile essay by James Kiefer which covers that objection, and some related points, at elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/c...ancy2.html . Among several excellent points in that essay, I thought the anecdote about Hitler and the non-reports of the massacre at Lodice was outstanding.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
P.S. The number of deaths in the 2003 earthquake in Bam was over 26,000.
