THE HOLY INNOCENTS THAT NEVER WERE
The Gospel of Matthew is the only record in the world that says that King Herod
had the male babies of Bethlehem butchered while the holy family, the baby
Jesus, Mary and Joseph, were on the way to hide in Egypt. No other source says
that Herod was a mass-child killer. Matthew claims his plan was to kill the
baby Jesus his political rival and since he didn't know which baby was which he
had them all slain.
Christians don’t worry about that and say that only a few babies would have been
killed for Bethlehem was a hamlet, that everybody was used to Herod doing things
like that and that nobody really cared in those barbaric times especially about
what happened in remote villages (The Case for Christ, page 139-140).
When the prophecy from Malachi that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem not
necessarily that he would be born there, the Jews would have been scared of some
other village being attacked by Herod next. Herod might have wanted to attack
roundabout villages in case the Messiah child was there visiting. There was also
the danger that the Messiah child had escaped to another village and that
fanatics would start a rumour that he was in their village. Herod knew that the
baby could be born in Bethlehem and not necessarily be kept in the village. So
his massacre had to engulf the whole locality around Bethlehem and not just the
village. There had to have been loads of deaths.
Bethlehem was only about five miles from Jerusalem the capital so it was
anything but a remote village that people had no interest in. The world had to
take notice.
The whole of Judaism had to take notice for most of them wanted the Messiah to
come fast.
The uproar would have been furious and tremendous.
According to Matthew, the magi informed King Herod that the newborn Messiah was
born in Bethlehem and that they were going to pay him homage. In fact, the magi
would not have told a monster like Herod that he had a rival. It was not wise to
do that with any king never mind a notoriously ruthless one.
There are lies in Matthew like all Jerusalem being disturbed and annoyed at the
news that the Messiah who was to rescue Israel had been born (Matthew 2). That
news was exactly what the people wanted to hear for they believed that the
Messiah would be a political saviour from Rome and inaugurate a wonderful reign
over the holy land that is if Matthew is right that they took the magi
seriously. Herod would not have been happy but the people would have been
delighted to see an end to him and the Roman occupation. Matthew could not be
trusted in unimportant details never mind big ones.
The magi promised Herod that if they found the child they would go back to tell
him where he was so that he could go and worship him. But after they had found
the child and bestowed gifts upon him they broke their word because a dream
warned them that Herod was up to no good. This promise is more ridiculous than
them telling Herod in the first place. Only fools go and tell tyrants that a
rival has been born.
Matthew claims that Herod was furious when the magi didn’t come back. This anger
was never felt for Herod could not have really expected them to return when they
had every chance of finding out that he was a man without mercy. (And Matthew
expects us to swallow the absurdity that they had to learn what Herod’s true
colours were in a vision!) The detail that Herod depended on them coming back is
a lie for somebody as shrewd and cynical as Herod would have arranged for them
to be observed by his spies. If Herod knew about Jesus he would have known where
he was and Jesus would have been hastily dealt with and so there would have been
no massacre. It had to be quick in case the parents would panic and the child
taken to safety.
Herod would have sent guards with them, just to spy, on the pretext that the
magi were bearing expensive goods. He did not do this for the child would have
been slain on their arrival if he had unless the truth was that Herod just
laughed at their claim that the Messiah had been born (which contradicts Matthew
and means that the Massacre never happened). Or Mary and Joseph would have made
a run for it to Egypt with the child before they got to the house.
If Herod waited for the magi there would have been no massacre for Herod would
have known that the baby would be hidden once the parents learned that Herod
knew. He knew the baby had to have been gone when the Magi would not come back
to tell him where he was which indicated that they knew what a monster he was.
There was no massacre.
And would Herod and the city of Jerusalem who did not accept astrology have
worried about the magi’s claims and would Herod have used their astrology to
work out to kill only male children of two and under and by going by the date
the star allegedly appeared to the magi? Why couldn’t the Jews see if the star
was there? Matthew lied about Jerusalem taking the news of the birth badly for
they would have scoffed at it considering who the news came from.
If Herod did not believe the magi then the massacre would not have happened. The
star would not have led the magi to his palace. As king, Herod must have
listened to plenty of similar cranks so it would be wonder if he let them have
an audience with him at all. And the Jews hated astrology so they would have
believed that if the stars said Christ was born then he was not the real Christ
but a satanic fraud who would come to no good. However, Matthew says they
consulted their scholars to see where Christ would be born which was in
Bethlehem according to the prophets which shows that Matthew claimed that they
expected the true Messiah. It is absurd too that Herod and his men would have
needed to consult them for that information for the Messiah was so important in
Judaism that everybody was sure they knew where he would have to be born in
Bethlehem.
If Herod believed that the child was the Christ he knew that God could warn the
parents of his hatred towards it so he would have went with the magi. Herod
would have been prepared for the family making a run for some place of refuge.
There would have been no escape had he gone and no chance of a massacre.
When Herod searched for the child it is extraordinary that he didn’t find him
for the child was still in Bethlehem after the magi left (2:13,14). Neighbours
could and would have directed his band of killers to where they saw the caravan
go when the holy family were on the run to Egypt so there would have been no
massacre if as Luke says that Mary and Joseph made no attempt to hide who their
child was.
Mary and Joseph allegedly fled to Egypt with the child when Herod started his
search and then all boys two and under two were slaughtered by Herod’s command.
If they had left it that late the neighbours might have told Herod’s men that a
couple who had been visited by the magi had disappeared suddenly with their baby
and averted the slaughter. The Bible tells us that the soldiers knew that they
had not killed the right child implying they did tell when it was too late
(Matthew 2:20,22) so somebody knew something about the child being taken away.
Joseph was aware that they knew for he chose to stay in Egypt until Herod went
to his reward in Hell. There was no need for a massacre and the telling would
have been done before it happened. The story is wholly incoherent.
If the flight into Egypt happened it happened as soon as Mary and Joseph heard
from the magi that Herod knew about the baby. But Matthew denies this saying
that Joseph had to be warned in a dream after the departure of the magi. This is
another absurdity.
The story of the massacre is riddled with inconsistencies and improbabilities.
Matthew seems to have made it up over not reading the prophecy he said
forecasted in its context.
He said that the massacre fulfilled Jeremiah 31:15 which has nothing to do with
it at all. In the prophecy Rachel weeps for her exiled children not dead ones.
Also, would Herod kill the baby boys and spare the fathers for the Messiah’s
father or foster-father would have to be the true king of Israel for the baby to
be the Messiah? The story of Herod’s demented determination to kill the child is
contradicted by Luke who says that the shepherds at Bethlehem told about the
birth without restraint and Anna and Simeon created a fuss in the Temple about
the son of God who had been brought there forty days after he had been born.
Luke relates that she told everybody though Herod’s palace was just round the
corner (2:38). This visit to the Temple was for Mary’s purification because it
was thought that having a baby was unclean. All this on Herod’s doorstep. They
were not scared of him at all. Luke must have thought that Herod was dead or
harmless – contradicting Matthew. When the reason Matthew told the story was to
fulfil the prophecy and the prophecy does not support the story it is evident
that because of the misinterpreted prophecy it was assumed that something like
that happened even though there was no evidence for it. That happened a lot in
the construction of the gospels.
If Herod had been interested in doing to baby Jesus what Matthew says he would
have went after baby John the Baptist too. Luke reported that it was common
knowledge in Judea that the baby John was to be the one to pave the way for the
Messiah if he was not the Messiah himself. The story says how happy they were to
hear about John’s birth which indicates strongly that it was believed the child
would be the Messiah. Herod would have believed that if he could not stop the
coming of the Messiah he could have stalled him by getting rid of the precursor.
There was also the possibility that John was more than just a forerunner and
could actually be the Christ himself. So when Herod did not go after John and no
secret was made about who John was supposed to be the Massacre could not have
happened.
The Assumption of Moses said that Herod kills princes by the sword and kills
them in secret and hides the bodies and has no mercy for young or old. This does
not corroborate the massacre because the babies were not princes and could not
have been killed in secret. The book was written just about the time of the
birth of Jesus in Matthew. A sewage pit for an ancient villa in Ashkelon not far
from Bethlehem was found to be full of babies who were at two days old and a
little bit older. Two thirds were boys. There were a hundred corpses in the pit
and they were there since the reign of Herod. But Matthew says that the babies
were as old as two and all boys. And why would Herod hide what he did for he
couldn’t? Luke has the baby Jesus paraded openly among the people in Jerusalem
contradicting Matthew about the alleged danger Jesus was in.
Josephus loved to chronicle the life and crimes of Herod and never mentioned the
alleged massacre of the babies. One reason the massacre would have got
attention is that it was about Herod trying to avoid tolerating a messianic
contender. The small or large number of babies dead is not what would get
attention so much as the purpose.
Christians don't argue, "Josephus hated Messianism so he would not have mentioned this for it would have implied that Jesus who was born in Bethlehem must have had a special right to be declared Messiah." To argue that way would be to cast doubt on their beloved text in Josephus that affirms Jesus as Messiah and back from the dead and admit what everybody knows: its forged.
Silence then in this case amounts to denial.
BOOKS CONSULTED
ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE, John W Haley, Whitaker House, Pennsylvania,
undated
BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND CHURCH DOCTRINE, Raymond E Brown, Paulist Press, New York,
1985
CHRIST AND PROTEST, Harry Tennant, Christadelphian Publishing Office,
Birmingham, undated
CHRISTIANITY FOR THE TOUGH-MINDED, Editor John Warwick Montgomery, Bethany
Fellowship, Minnesota, 1973
IN DEFENCE OF THE FAITH, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon, 1996
JESUS AND THE FOUR GOSPELS, John Drane, Lion Books, Herts, 1984
JESUS HYPOTHESES, V Messori, St Paul Publications, Slough, 1977
NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS, GA Riplinger, Bible & Literature Foundation, Tennessee,
1993
THE BIBLE UNEARTHED, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, Touchstone
Books, New York, 2002
THE CASE FOR CHRIST, Lee Strobel, HarperCollins and Zondervan, Michigan, 1998
THE HOLY BIBLE NEW AMERICAN VERSION, Confraternity of Christian Doctrine,
Washington DC, 1970
THE JESUS EVENT, Martin R Tripole SJ, Alba House, New York, 1980
THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Kittel Gerhard and Friedrich
Gerhard, Eerdman’s Publishing Co, Grand Rapids, MI, 1976
THE PASSOVER PLOT, Hugh Schonfield, Element Books, Dorset, 1996
THE UNAUTHORISED VERSION. Robin Lane Fox, Penguin, Middlesex, 1992
THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION AND BODILY RESURRECTION OF JESUS, Raymond E Brown,
Paulist Press, New York, 1973