Is this historical?
Gramps49
Shipmate
in Kerygmania
Matthew 2: 13-23
This has long been a subject of discussion since Matthew wrote it down. There is no outside proof this happened, but Josephus did say Harod killed one or two of his sons when they tried to usurp the throne. Moreover, we do have accounts of other despots eliminating people that threatened them.
How do you react to the story? How do you think other Christians react to story?
Will this preach? (No, I am not going to preach on this text myself. I have decided to take a more existential approach next Sunday. Leading off with Peggy Lee's Is That All There is. Tying in Ecclesiastes (ala Turn. Turn, Turn) and ending up with the story of Simon and Anna.)
There is one interesting side note. In the Gospel lesson for 4 Sunday in Advent we have the story of Joseph considering what to do with Mary, when an Angel appears to him in a dream, telling him to take Mary as his wife....
Then in this the story of the flight into Egypt the same angel in a dream tells Joseph to flee for their lives. And when it is safe to return to Isreal, once again comes to Joseph in a dream telling him it is okay to return.
This goes back to another dreamer, also named Joseph way back when.
But, back to original question: is the slaughter of the male babies after the birth of Jesus historical?
This has long been a subject of discussion since Matthew wrote it down. There is no outside proof this happened, but Josephus did say Harod killed one or two of his sons when they tried to usurp the throne. Moreover, we do have accounts of other despots eliminating people that threatened them.
How do you react to the story? How do you think other Christians react to story?
Will this preach? (No, I am not going to preach on this text myself. I have decided to take a more existential approach next Sunday. Leading off with Peggy Lee's Is That All There is. Tying in Ecclesiastes (ala Turn. Turn, Turn) and ending up with the story of Simon and Anna.)
There is one interesting side note. In the Gospel lesson for 4 Sunday in Advent we have the story of Joseph considering what to do with Mary, when an Angel appears to him in a dream, telling him to take Mary as his wife....
Then in this the story of the flight into Egypt the same angel in a dream tells Joseph to flee for their lives. And when it is safe to return to Isreal, once again comes to Joseph in a dream telling him it is okay to return.
This goes back to another dreamer, also named Joseph way back when.
But, back to original question: is the slaughter of the male babies after the birth of Jesus historical?
Comments
Also, Jesus came so that He would die so that many didn't have to die. This story would suggest that many had to die because Jesus was spared. Sort of the wrong way round. I don't think God would allow that.
Given the ambiguous status of children’s personhood I do wonder if ancient writers would consider the murder of a group of children worth recording in a chronicle of a kings actions - unless they were making a point.
Not sure what to make of that, though I would probably have assumed that, if nothing else, the Romans would know about it, and probably have some opinions as to the advisability of it.
Well, the line does say that Rachel is weeping "because they are no more", which leads me to conclude at least that the writer wants the reader to think the slaughter actually took place.
As for archeological evidence, I can't think of how any would be preserved. Most of the children probably died of stab wounds or other methods that don't leave skeletal evidence. They probably wouldn't have been buried all together--they had families right there, with family tombs or plots, and relatives to care for them--and no reason why the soldiers would have concerned themselves with their burial. And at all times in human history the death of children under five has been horribly common, so simply finding a lot of young skeletons (if those even remain!) would tell us nothing.
re God allowing this--
That used to bother me too until I realized that in fact Jesus did not escape death, he simply had it postponed and made far uglier. I mean, which would you rather choose for someone you loved, a quick death by sword or the slow death of flogging and crucifixion? There was even a Herod involved for him, too.
That's an interesting calculus, @Lamb Chopped . I think I would like 30 years of life rather than less than 2, even if the 30 years did end with a painful death.
But I guess Matthew related the story for a reason?
Yes, it may not be a very cheering subject for a sermon, any more than the flight into Egypt is, but it is a welcome and valuable antidote to the sentimental version of Christmas put about by the media and enjoined by innumerable trivial songs. It is a reminder that there is a great deal more to the whole narrative than 'of course, Christmas is really for the children', 'don't they look sweet dressed up as Angels, shepherds and sheep', or even that 'the real meaning of Christmas is about being kind to the poor', as if somehow that doesn't apply to the rest of the year.
@Gramps49 if you had not said that you have already decided to preach on something else, I would have said go for it. It's the reading for that week. There can be very few congregations that would not merit from being weaned off the notion that the bowdlerised version of Christmas conveyed by the popular song "It's the most wonderful time of the year" both in its atmosphere and the specific lyrics. It has nothing to do with the real one, why the real one is wonderful or why it is not,
I was somewhat horrified to hear a preacher maintain recently that of course the Holy Family were not refugees and had nothing in common with the sort of people who are trying to cross the English Channel in rubber dinghies. In your context, the equivalent would be the border with Mexico and the wall to keep them out. In his version, the Holy Family went to Egypt so that they could be called back again and so fulfil Matthew's citation of Hosea 11:1 "out of Egypt I have called my son". Their having taken flight from Herod was merely the convenient way God got them to go there so that the words of the prophet might be vindicated.
Going back to your original question, my answer would be 'as history, yes unless there is some good historical reason for questioning it'. Sadly, I do not think there is.
It would be nicer if it had not happened. One might even think it would be more edifying if it had not done, for the reasons @Merry Vole gives, particularly since their lives, even for Herod, were a totally unnecessary sacrifice. His target baby had gone.
And what would that reason (or purpose) be?
Massacres were common as military actions in this era, especially for armies capturing a fortified town. The Roman standard for this was that a captured town could escape sacking (and the accompanying massacre) if they surrendered before the first Roman ram touched the walls. After that Romans thought that the troops had earned some looting and war crimes. Massacres were also common in the wake of uprisings or rebellions. For example, the slaves participating in the Third Servile War (also known as the Spartacus revolt) were all massacred, often in very public ways to discourage imitators. What we don't have very many examples of historically is the selective massacre of small infants in a village that wasn't involved in a war or revolt.
Josephus loved recording the misdeeds of Herod the Great, so the fact that this massacre is absent from his histories is a point against it ever having happened. Josephus does give us a list of executions Herod ordered from his deathbed. Specifically he ordered the execution of the eagle stealers (look it up), the execution of the crown prince (he'd plotted to murder his father), and the execution of leading citizens from towns all over Judea. Only the first two orders were carried out. It seems likely to me that the third incident, the execution of a bunch of random but important people, may have been the inspiration for Matthew's tale, suitably altered to fit the narrative he wanted to tell.
How do we know it was the same angel? It's only described as "an angel of the Lord", with an indefinite article.
*There is the story of Pharoah eliminating the infant Hebrew males but one was saved--Moses.
*Joseph (with his dreams) had brought his people to Egypt during a time of famine (no famine that we know of here)
*The wailing of Ramah repeats the story of what happened when people were deported to Babylon.
*Out of Egypt God calls his son.
But he weaves all of these threads together for a reason.
That said, it seems unlikely to me that Matthew would simply have invented the story just to create more parallels between the life of Jesus and the life of Moses, not if many of his readers would likely have known it never happened. At the least, I think it must have been a story in common circulation. And as has been noted, it doesn’t strain credulity.
An easier test is that by age two most children can walk.
I think the primary reason Matthew told the story it's because it happened, and it had a major effect on the life of his protagonist--not only fulfilling prophecy but getting his family from Bethlehem where he was born to Nazareth which was "no prophet comes from Galilee" territory. You kind of need a reason to explain why the Davidic Messiah spent his infancy in Bethlehem, as expected, but as an adult was constantly called "Jesus of Nazareth." The story Matthew tells provides a sensible reason for this--and one that could be checked if anyone felt the urge (Though the massacre might have been small potatoes to those concerned with Herod's history, I expect Bethlehem locals remembered it for generations.)
We must remember, the purpose of the Gospels is not to be historical accounts in the modern sense of the term "historical" While the story is probable, but not independently verified.
The story, to me is a midrash, not a newspaper report.
It presents Jesus as a "new Moses"
It echoes Pharoah's slaughter of the Hebrew infants.
It shows God's solidarity with the oppressed.
It presents Herod as a tyrant.
Of note, here is the named savior of the world--Jesus--having to be saved from the tyrant.
I must say, though, we can certainly think of many modern slaughter of innocents:
what has been happening in Gaza,
what is happening in Ukraine
the slaughter of Jews under the Nazi regime
the wholesale killings of Native American/First Nations children
And, certainly, many, many more.
And actually, I wouldn’t say that it’s implied. I think it’s closer to say a reader might infer it, but the text simply doesn’t say or suggest one way or the other. I think it’s just as possible to read the text as ignoring where anyone lived prior to going to Egypt; perhaps Matthew didn’t see that as being importance to what he wanted to convey.
I have no problem at all seeing the versions we get in Matthew and Luke being completely consistent with what happens to family stories that get passed down over a number of years, especially when multiple people are involved in that passing down.
Had one or both of them included major events in their birth narratives that run opposite to the overriding themes--had Luke kept everything he has, but added the massacre, or Matthew kept his own, but thrown in the Magnificat--well, then I might have considered these to be the natural residue of family stories unshaped by any artist but time. As it is, I suppose both authors to be choosing and omitting for a purpose.
And really, we all do that with our own storytelling, whether we consider ourselves artists or not. My husband has several versions of the story of his imprisonment, suffering, first escape attempt, torture, and final successful escape. One is even quite funny!
But he chooses and omits details and even whole events based on the effect he's trying to get--and that depends largely on the audience he's facing, and the occasion. And nobody blames him for omitting the torture bits when he's talking to a group including children, or when he's (say) speaking at a celebration. It doesn't mean they never happened, just that he thought them not fit for his purpose in telling the story to that audience on that occasion.
Did you just delete a post?
If you did, that's okay.
I thought I had seen something, but when I came back to it, it was gone.
Did you just explain the documentary hypothesis of the Gospels?
Technically not deleted, but edited to the point of virtual deletion, and then accidentally reposted. Hence two nothing-posts.
I had raised a point based on your previous post, but then realized I'd misunderstood what you were saying. Apologies.
Possibly a misspelling or misquote of Judges 13:5.
No.
Right, I'm afraid I was just using your post for a jumping off point, not trying to differ! I should have been clearer.
I've also heard it explained as a reference to the word "netzer," that is, a root (Isa. 53). This is a hard one, and makes me wish we had more OT manuscripts!
Because it happened?
I think it’s the other way around actually, that the prophet uttered the prophecy because that was what was what happened in the future.
There's definitely a double step. Someone decided the words the prophet said should apply to Jesus.
(As well as deciding that the massacre happened and was relevant)
Either this followed 'knowing' about the massacre. In which case something presumably happened.
It's fairly possible that Matthew heard something and got confused, or for other reasons decided an infancy escape was essential, or technically possible God decided that he'd prophesy based on a future rumour.
Or the prophecy was seen as messianic before the decision to 'have' a massacre. Which seems unlikely/ugly at the moment.
---another point and question---
a) in my opinion Herod must have thought Jesus was about 12 months (or been extremely confident in his priests calculations and his soldiers profiling)
b) Rachel is weeping, but I was recently reminded Jesus is from Leah (it's not just the unpopular brother that's chosen), of course he survives.
Is Bethlehem a particularly Benjamite/Ephraimite/Mannasharite town?
* Matthew, in the passage in question, refers to what was spoken through “the prophets,” plural, not “the prophet,” singular. St. Jerome found this noteworthy, writing that had Matthew had a specific prophecy in mind, he would have used the singular, as he does every other time he cites OT prophets. (See earlier in the same passage, where Matthew says “Then what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled.”) Instead, Jerome said, the reference is to the message of the prophets as a whole. He then interprets Matthew as engaging in wordplay, both in the sense of “holy” (as in Nazirite), as well netzer (branch), which @Lamb Chopped noted. The wordplay/imagery could also extend to the Jesus as the suffering servant, the popular image of Nazareth as a backwater (“Can anything good come from Nazareth?”) tying into the rejection of the Messiah.
As I recall, Benjamin took their territory from within Judah's borders, so yes, it's likely Bethlehem is in or near historic Benjamin.
And I agree that Herod probably left himself a generous safety margin on ages--and the soldiers too erred in the direction of "Might be three, kill him anyway."
And that could have happened at any point in the last couple of generations--and left Joseph with fairly close living relatives in Bethlehem--people who might be willing to house visiting relatives, and even give them a start in life if they chose to relocate "back home" again to Bethlehem (which is what it looks like they're doing, before King Herod starts his crap).
It's also worth remembering that people tended to marry cousins in that culture. That means that Mary too may have had fairly close living relatives in Bethlehem. After all, she has Elizabeth in the hill country of Judea--which is even further away!
Gen 35:16-21. Jacob, his two wives and two concubines were journeying south from Bethel, heading for Hebron where Jacob's father Isaac was. Rachel was with child and went in to labour. She gave birth to Benjamin. She then died. This was just outside Bethlehem and Jacob buried her there.
Her tomb is still there, by the road between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. The wikipedia link explains that like much in the Holy Land it has been both cherished and the object of considerable contention for centuries.
At the split between Judah under Rehoboam and the Northern kingdom under Jeroboam son of Nebat, 'who made Israel to sin', Benjamin, which was the next tribe north from Judah, seems to have stayed with Judah, which I assume how Paul could be of the tribe of Benjamin.