Talk:Massacre of the Innocents/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Curious similarities between Indian and Abrahamic religions

The similarities and common heritage (including deities, saints, customs and beliefs) within Indian faiths (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, etc) and within Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are probably well-known and over-researched. However, I'm often surprised by several such "historic incidents" or "beliefs" that are common to both Indian and Abrahamic faiths. The massacre of the innocents, for example, is very similar to an incident mentioned in several ancient Indian scriptures relating to the birth of Krishna (the eighth avatar of the Hindu God Vishnu as per the Dasavatara tradition) wherein the contemporary King Kamsa (also the maternal uncle of Krishna) of Mathura (the place of Krishna's birth), afraid of losing the throne and his grip on the kingdom when he came to know of a prophecy, ordered the execution of new-born male children in Mathura. Of course, there are several other such similar traditions between Indian and Abrahamic religions, such as a giant life-wiping deluge (the manifestation of Pralaya on Earth), the efforts of some sages to save life by building a vessel and collecting herds of animals in it, etc etc, the list is probably long. What is not unarguably clear is whether it is Indian events that have influenced or given rise to the Biblical beliefs or vice-versa. It may be dangerous to conclude that the former is more likely solely on the simplistic data that Hinduism and other Indian religions pre-date Abrahamic ones, because it is generally accepted that "incremental embellishments" were continually made to most ancient Indian scriptures right through into the 1st millenium A.D. But this is all very interesting indeed, and I wish more work existed to research and document the commonalities between Indian and Abrahamic faiths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Title -- I think that I've always called this story "The Slaughter of the Innocents" or "The Slaughter of the Holy Innocents". Perhaps this is Commonwealth countries usage? (martin a.)

Is there any evidence of this from primary sources and/or contemporaneous writers? IIRC, it is only in one of the gospels, and is not in Josephus or other writers who described the reign of Herod. --FOo

I'd have to check, but it probably shows up in the Infancy Gospel of James, or some such account. There's also a tradition that says John the Baptist had to be hid as an infant as well to escape this massacre, but I'm not sure how old that is or its source. Wesley
I think the John the Baptist tradition comes from the Infancy Gospel of James as well. Clinkophonist 11:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The scale of the event

I moved this from the article to here: It has been estimated (by whom?) that, if the story is true, 20 to 30 little boys were killed. - Zoe

I saw something like that in a documentary on TV. It is based on estimates of Bethlehem's population at the beginning of the Common Era, and does not seem unreasonable. Sorry, I don't have a better reference, but it does not seem suspicious enough to remove from the article. SCCarlson

Yes, the 20-30 figure was mentioned ina Discovery Channel documentary, which explained that the relatively small number of people killed could be the answer as to why is was not recorded by contemporary historians.

JW: The article says: "Brown estimates that the population was no more than a thousand. Given the birth rate and high infant mortality rate of the time, either of these figures would mean at most only a few dozen children killed."

This refers to page 204 of The Birth Of The Messiah and Brown indicates no such thing. The numbers you attribute to Brown above are Brown's summary of Apologist arguments and not Brown's argument. Brown indicates that based on what "Matthew" wrote the numbers would be much larger and therefore less plausible.

If you want to try and defend against error you first have to deal with the proper translation of "Bethlehem and its vicinity" which most Christian translations have mistranslated thereby underestimating the area referred to. Once you have done this then you can properly estimate the number of innocents "Matthew" intended and you have a default position that this would be the worst thing Herod ever supposedly did. Then you need to identify what was the worst thing Josephus identifed that Herod did and compare it to the slaughter of the Innocents.

When you refer to Apologist arguments this is what you end up with. Joseph

Can this be worked into the article in a factual and neutral way? --Wetman 20:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


JW: Okay, here's what Brown says, Pages 204-205:

"The double use of "all" ("regions all around it") in this verse gives the impression of large numbers. Despite the obvious storytelling atmosphere, those interested in establishing the historicity of the event have calculated how many children there would have been in a village like Bethlehem and its surroundings. Because of the high infant mortality rate, we are told that if the total population was one thousand, with an annual birthrate of thirty, the male children under two years of age would scarcely have numbered more than twenty. In this thought pattern the lowness of the number is judged to increase the likelihood, as opposed to the tendency in later writing to exaggerate the number."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement by Brown of the "no more than a thousand" and "at most only a few dozen children killed" assertions in The Article. Now Brown doesn't use the "fantastic" word here which he reserves for the worst Apologies but he doesn't bother to give a footnote reference either. The references in the article to Brown and the numbers above need to be removed.


Joseph


JW: (From Article) "If the event is historical, given the small size of "Bethlehem and its vicinity," it did not involve a large number of boys age two and under. Albright estimates the area had about 300 people at the time. Brown estimates that the population was no more than a thousand. Given the birth rate and high infant mortality rate of the time, either of these figures would mean at most only a few dozen children killed.[2] This would not have been a particularly large atrocity for the period in general and Herod in particular and thus might have escaped mention by Josephus and others."

I can see that Price changed his footnote reference based on what I've written above but the Article itself has not been changed. "Brown estimates that the population was no more than a thousand." No, Brown doesn't say this. Read your own article Price, I know it's confusing now since you had to change it. Brown is reporting what Apologists say. Read properly Brown is saying that reasoning related to the supposed Massacre is Conclusion based. The Early Church wanted big numbers. Modern Apologists, concerned with Historicity, want small numbers. This is Brown's point. The reasoning is Conclusion driven. Thanks for showing us how the Apologist game is played.

Here's a suggestion, read all of The Birth Of The Messiah and not just parts you think agree with your conclusions. Then you will see Page 36:

"Indeed, close analysis of the infancy narratives makes it unlikely that either account is completely historical. Matthew's account contains a number of extraordinary or miraculous public events that, were they factual, should have left some traces in Jewish records or elsewhere in the NT (...the massacre of all the male children in Bethlehem)."

Obviously Brown thinks the Massacre Not historical. Yet you use his name in a plausibility paragraph, attribute an estimate to him that he didn't make and imply he's part of your support for "at most only a few dozen children killed." Here's the deal guys (Price, Carlson). You correct the article or I'll make a special on it at II. Don't make me go through the whole Infancy Narrative here.


Joseph


Joseph, I have not made any changes to this article for several months, so I am not sure of what I am accused of changing in response to your post here. And if Brown is that tentative about a 1,000 person population (I'd have to go back and check), then simply remove the reference. That is what Wikipedia is all about. As for accusing me of being somehow hypocritical on the issue, please be advised that I am not one of the early Christian writers who claimed tens of thousands of children were killed and have always thought that the number was much smaller. Bethelehem was hardly a metropolis and the lower number of under 2 year old boys there at the time has been endorsed by many respected scholars who are not apologists.
As for going "through the whole Infancty Narrative" I am not sure what the point would be since this entry has a much narrower scope. As for threatning to take this to "II" and presumably getting skeptical activists involved, that's hardly in the spirit of things Wiki. No one has been opposing you or preventing you from making the edit yourself. Trying to bully people into making edits you want is unnecessary. Layman 02:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Has it escaped anyone's notice that 20-30 deaths couldn't be called a massacre? Clinkophonist 11:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What about the Boston Massacre? I thought they only had one death from that. It's a nearly completely arbitrary definition.128.211.254.142 19:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article:
NOTE from a Bible believer: The higher number of 14,000 or even 64,000 may be easily accounted for when a strict interpretation of the Biblical text is used. The King James says clearly in Matthew 2:16 "Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men." If we include "all the coasts thereof" we can easily understand why there are differing numbers in the different liturgies referenced. Different historians seem to often include a different number of surrounding cities and smaller settlements when adding up total numbers in events.

It's also easy to believe that the massacre may have taken place in a number of different sequential events and this also may account for the varying numbers in the various non-Bible liturgies. The Biblical text tells us that Herod the Great "sent forth" rather than performing the massacre himself. It may well have been that his own son Archelaus did the actual killing as Archelaus was known to be an effective military leader and I believe he would have been of a commanding age. (See wikipedia on Archelaus)

We know for a fact that Bethlehem's temporary population was increased due to the time of taxation that forced Joseph to leave Nazareth and travel to Bethlehem. (xref Luke 2:1). The Bible tells us that Joseph had to go to Bethlehem because he was of the house and lineage of David (xref Luke 2:1-4) so we can safely assume that all people of that descent went to Bethlehem and the surrounding areas at that time to be numbered and taxed. I don't know how long they had to stay there but the wise men found Jesus as a young child, in a house rather than a manger, so we know that Jesus' family had remained in Bethlehem for some time. Indeed when the wise men told Herod that they were looking for the Christ they assumed him to be under the age of 2 years. (xref Luke 2:8-12, Matthew 2:11,16). With these facts in mind it is reasonable to believe that many people that came to the area for the taxation may have had an extended stay or may have simply decided to remain around people of their own descent rather than making the difficult and expensive journey back home. Doesn't the Bible clearly tell us that when Mary and Joseph first arrived at Bethlehem the town was so full that they couldn't find a room at the inn and had to sleep in a manger (Luke 2:7)? All of these facts point to a city bursting at it's seams. We know that Joseph had no intention to return to Nazareth because he only left Bethlehem when an angel of the Lord warned him in a dream that Herod was going to try to kill Jesus. (xref Matthew 2:13) The following massacre described in the Bible would have scattered the large temporary population and returned Bethlehem to the sleepy little town it once was. As we know the Bible specifically tells us Bethlehem was normally a small place and it may not have been an ideal place to sustain a large population for an extended period of time. (Micah 5:2-3 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.") Because of the warning God gave Joseph his family was able to flee to Egypt before the massacre and remained there until Herod died and it was safe to return to Israel. We know that he never returned to Bethlehem because he was afraid of Archelaus (which supports the theory that Archelaus had a part in the killings) but being warned of God Joseph decided to settle in Nazareth again were he and Mary had begun. (Matthew 2:19-23, Luke 2:4) Also a dead town like Bethlehem may not have had much need for a carpenter looking for work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.177.123 (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2007

A Question

In the present day Roman Catholic Church, is it common for the homily to be against abortion? If so, and if this can be sourced, a statement to this effect would be in order. (Since it is still the Feast of St. John in the United States, I cannot yet get the answer just by going to a daily Mass.) Robert McClenon 00:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is pretty well assumed. Normally the homily is to tie the readings together, and not be an expository on Church teachings. Often I wish it were as well. Procuring an abortion is grounds for automatic excommunication [1]and the problems of all offenses against life are taught in CCD classes. Dominick (TALK) 12:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
True. At Mass today, however, the homily focused not on the baby boys, but on St. Joseph. Robert McClenon 13:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Herod Timeline

The timeline at Herod would put the massacre of the innocents in Herod Archelaus reign, not Herod the Great's 63.27.184.145 19:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Chapter 2 of the Gospel of Matthew clearly attributes the massacre of the innocents to Herod the Great, as you can see from 2:19–22:
2:19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
2:20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.
2:21 And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.
2:22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
This makes it clear that when "Herod" was dead, his son "Archelaus" ruled in Judea. So Matthew must mean Herod the Great when he writes "Herod".
There are several possible explanations for the dating problem. First, Dionysius Exiguus may have been mistaken when he placed Jesus' birth in 1 BC (see Anno Domini for details). Second, Herod the Great may have died later than 4 BC; see the Herod the Great article for an extended discussion of the difficulty of dating his death. Third, Matthew may have been mistaken when he placed Jesus' birth in Herod's reign. Gdr 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
There are a few instances in the Gospels, though, where the writer will be calling something by one name but later lapse into calling it by another of its names. They did this with town names sometimes, too.128.211.254.142 19:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Historicity

Is there a reason why Jacolliot writing about the Krishna tale was removed? It is describing a similiar story of Herod. (i.e. The same way Horus, born of a virgin in a stable resurrecting El-Lazar-us, was retold as Jesus resurrecting Lazuras. [2])

"[The tyrant Kansa] ordained the massacre in all his states, of all the children of the male sex, born during the night of the birth of Christna ..."

I'd guess that since the Khrisna tales are likely to be copied from stories of Jesus (as Hinduisations) that parallels with Khrishna aren't that significant for Christianity. The parallel should probably be discussed in the article for whatever the Krishna tale is called rather than here. I'm extremely curious what something about Horus has got to do with whether Khrishna details belong in the article. Clinkophonist 23:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If non-Christians have adapted the massacre story or vice versa, that is interesting for the article, provided it is treated in a Wikipedia-worthy fashion. --Error (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Secular historians

There has been an addition to the article:

Secular historians generally regard the account as ahistorical

and again

Secular historians do not regard the massacre of the innocents to be a historical event. One common explanation for the story is that the redactor of the Book of Matthew includes it in order to liken Jesus to Moses and to portray him as fulfilling prophecy.

There is one reference supporting this:

Robert Eisenman, James The Brother of Jesus, 1997, I.3 "Romans, Herodians and Jewish sects" discusses Mariamne, the last representative of the Maccabean line, by whom Herod had two sons, whom he put to death. "Here Herod really did kill all the Jewish children who sought to replace him, as Matthew 2:17 would have it, but these were rather his own children with Maccabean blood!" (p 49). No modern secular Roman history mentions the massacre

My question: Does Eisenman say that "generally, secular historians don't read the account as historical", or does he just say that he doesn't regard the account as historical?

Also, I am quite uncomfortable with the phrase "secular historians" — historians themselves don't see themselves as divided into secular and unsecular groups, nor am I really sure what that is suppose to mean. What is a "secular historian", and is there a reference that actually suports this division of the scholarship? Lostcaesar 15:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

LC, please suggest an alternative to "secular." "Scholars of the historical Jesus. . ." would work. "Historians that regard the gospels as fallible historical artifacts. . ." would also work. "Nonsectarian. . ." has its own issues, but I'd be fine with it. "Scholars who puts Man's reason above God's Word. . ." would be acceptable to me. "Historians that base their work on the historical method rather than faith in the Gospels. . ." "Secular" means "temporal" or "worldly." Secular scholars are those who see the gospels, etc., as temporal, worldly artifacts rather than as eternal, supernatural phenomena. I still like "secular." Jonathan Tweet 16:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we merely use the term "historian" when it applies, or whatever relevant field we are discussing (biblical scholars, professors of religion, &c.). The historical methods do not take into account doctrines such as infallibility and as such there is no need for said qualifiers. I don't think you will find historians characterizing their colleagues on these terms. Lostcaesar 22:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
LC, could you find one general-purpose, modern history that takes the massacre of the innocent seriously? There's a significant difference between gospel events that historians credit, such as the crucifixion, and those that they don't such as the magi, the massacre, and the flight into Egypt. It is a disservice to the neutral reader not to differentiate between events commonly accepted as historical and those commonly understood as ahistorical. Jonathan Tweet 02:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can look. Personally, I don't expect historians to have much to say one way or the other, since the event doesn't impact the overall historical picture, even of studies of Herod. The event only appears in Matthew. Matthew is a difficult source because it has a religious aim. However, based on what Josephus says, we know that Herod's disposition was such that Matthew's claim seems entierly within his character. Josephus doesn't mention the event itself, but no historian thinks Josephus was omniscent, and were dealing with a township of a few hundred to a thousand people, and so about 20 or 30 children (still a horrible crime, but not something Josephus needs have heard of). At least, that's how one of my old history profs I had described it in my classes on Rome (and he had no problem in using critical methods on the Bible). Point is, who knows - I don't really see historians getting in a fuss about it, saying one way or another, since it doesn't impact the telling of history much. It does seem like the kind of thing Biblical scholars would go round about, since that's their field. I wouldn't say its commonly accpeted as historial, or ahistorial, by historians - I would say that they generally aren't forced to say one way or the other, and couldn't even if they needed to, but don't need to because the history of the Near East under Roman rule is the same either way. Lostcaesar 02:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

LC, I think we're letting our readers down if we don't state the strongest historical case up front. But let's say for compromise' sake that this story is too petty to be of interest to historians in general. Still, the Book of Mark's role in the New Testament is of more general interest. Let's try this on for size: "The story of the massacre occurs only in Matthew, which is generally understood by historians to include material invented in order to glorify Jesus. Since the story of the massacre glorifies Jesus by likening him to Moses, it is suspect. Since the massace is directly related to the stories of the wise men and the flight into Egypt, which also appear only in Mark and also glorify Jesus, the massacre fits a pattern." The follow-up question is, Do historians generally regard the Bible as a sacred but fallible text written, redacted, and canonized by mortals and reflecting their changing beliefs? Jonathan Tweet 04:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, historians' religious views obviously vary. What makes someone a historian is his employment of historical techniques when discerning truth about the past, and his ability to tell history in a narrative structure that interprets the history in a way consistent with these facts. I think it can be said that historical methods show the Bible to have human authors, to represent a developing set of beliefs, and, concerning manuscript transmission, certain changes have occurred creating differences between the autograph and the texts we have now (some which we know, some which we do not). I think such statements quite rightly leave unanswered the question of whether the various books are divinely inspired, infallible, or sacred — a question that no method of textual analysis is really equipped to address. As for the question of the historicity of the Gospels, which is a historical matter that more directly affects religious claims, I will say that historians have differing views. In general will say they are all very glad to have these sources, and are comfortable using them in areas where religious ends were not in view (for example, Luke's description of Paul's boat ride is the only description of small-craft water travel in ancient Rome, and a great insight into this simple part of history). On the overtly religious material, some historians are more comfortable working with it than others. Generally, I would say that views on the veracity of miracles per se are philosophical / religious, and historians mostly try and stay in their realm, asking whether or not the source is accurate and trustworthy, and leaving the veracity of miracles as a question subordinate to this. There is certainly no requirement to doubt miracles in order to be a historian, instead one must simply stay within the realm of historical methods, and what they can and cannot say.
Biblical scholars deal much more directly with this material, and in my experience are much more comfortable importing philosophical assumption into their work. It seems to me that the willingness to reject the historicity of biblical events is more pronounced and divisive in this community, probably simply a result of the fact that their interest is directly this. They are less likely to leave certain matters open ended and try and tell the larger narrative regardless, because their field is not about the larger narrative but exactly these events. Some people in this field do see certain religious or philosophical dispositions as prerequisites, a reason why I chose to work in (medieval) history, rather than biblical studies.
Lostcaesar 08:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The reason that "secular" is essential in this specific context is that Christianists when discussing the "Massacre of the Innocents" invariably pose as "historians". To the question "what is a secular historian", if it is a genuine request for information, one might present in contrast two biographies of Herod the Great: one is included in Clarence E. MacArtney, Great Characters of the Bible, there offered as if historical; another is Michael Grant, Herod the Great. Michael Grant is a classicist and a highly respected secular historian. One looks in vain for the "Massacre of the Innocents" in his biography of Herod the Great, needless to say. -Wetman 08:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I frankly find it insulting that you say Christians "pose" as historians, as if a Christian cannot truly be a historian. If so then we have much rearranging to do in our libraries. If what you mean instead is that amateurs pose as historians, then that is a different matter, but of course this removes any essential need for "secular" as a modifier. And yes, my question as to what a "secular historian" is indeed is a genuine request for information. Lostcaesar 08:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
LC, I don't like to try to corner you, but it's hard to resist. I will at least give you a heads-up: Here it comes. You say, "I don't expect historians to have much to say one way or the other, since the event doesn't impact the overall historical picture." I now invite you to indulge in a subjective, hypothetical scenario. Two months from now archeologists discover incontrovertible proof that the massacre occured. What's the result?
A. Most historians really don't care one way or anther.
B. Most historians regard this finding as the most significant new knowledge of the year, and Bible scholars regard it as the most significant new knowledge of the decade (or several decades).
Your assertion that historians don't have much to say on it doesn't square with my read. Imagine evidence that the magi really came to Herod and that Jesus really was born in Bethlehem! It would redefine gospel scholarship. Jonathan Tweet 07:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I would think A, as far as most historians are concerned in their work, because it doesn't change much what we know about antiquity. The overall narrative of Roman / Jewish history is unchanged. Even what we know about Herod the Great is the same — he was still a ruthless ruler willing to do anything, including kill, to stay in power. Perhaps we have one more piece of evidence to confirm that picture, and it helps support what Josephus (and Matthew) said about him). It would cause some historians to be more comfortable with the infancy material in Matthew, but other than this event there is little there that could be incorporated into the historical narrative anyway. Now, for biblical scholarship it would be very significant, and for apologists it would be a kind of coup. This has happened before. It used to be said that Luke got his topography of Antioch wrong, until archaeological work showed that he was actually right. It also used to be said that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was actually within the walls of Jerusalem, meaning it couldn't be the place of execution, until another archaeologist discovered that it was actually outside the walls of Old Jerusalem. Neither of these discoveries changed much the historical narrative of ancient Rome, or Israel. Now I don't mean to paint so clear a picture. I am sure that some historians would find this relevant to their work. But it is fairly obscure. Lostcaesar 07:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, thank you for indulging me. Now back to the issue at hand. I propose adding: "The story of the massacre occurs only in Matthew, which is generally understood by historians to include material invented to glorify Jesus. Since the story of the massacre glorifies Jesus by likening him to Moses, it is suspect. Since the massace is directly related to the stories of the wise men and the flight into Egypt, which also appear only in Mark and also glorify Jesus, the massacre fits a pattern." Comments? Jonathan Tweet 07:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The article already says the following:
The historicity of the event is questioned by some biblical scholars.
Some scholars, such as Robert Eisenman, have called the historicity of this event into question, arguing that the prophetic nature of the account, and the lack of multiple attestation, decreases its credulity
There is a near-contemporary Talmudic Haggadah referring to Moses and Pharaoh, with very similar features. As Jesus is portrayed in the Gospels as a Moses Redivivus, it is likely this legend influenced Matthew. (unsourced)
I dont see what is to be gained, not already in present in the article, from your proposed edit. Lostcaesar 12:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
"...as if a Christian cannot truly be a historian:" A red herring, needless to say. Many historians who happen to be Christians write secular history. Lactantius is a Christianist who poses as a historian. And much of the zaniest hagiography is presented with "historical" details as if true. --Wetman 10:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
So now you are making a distinction between "secular history" and unnamed other kinds of history, rather than "secular historians" — yet the point is none the clearer. The example about Lactantius doesn't help much, as I can't say I'm very familiar with his historical works. Lostcaesar 12:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

LC, "I dont see what is to be gained, not already in present in the article, from your proposed edit." You don't see any advantage to this addition. I do. I could try to point out what it adds, but that's beside the point. If your criticism is merely that you don't see what it adds, then that's not enough to keep me from adding it. Jonathan Tweet 14:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Julius Caesar wrote the Conquest of Gaul to glorify himself, but, of course, he really did cross the Rubicon (and conquer Gaul, for that matter). If all the section adds is a duplicate of material, some of it unsourced, I don't see its worth. Maybe you could indulge me anyway, even if you dont see think its beside the point. Lostcaesar 14:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, as a favor I'll indulge you and lay off. I have recently made a change or two, but I'll stop now. I have a rewrite of the historicity section ready and waiting to be pasted in, but I'll let it sit. Now how about you remove the expert, OR, and fact tags from the academic section of Purgatory? Jonathan Tweet 15:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I mean indulge me and explain, even though this is "beside the point", why this material is unique or relevant. I didn't mean to ask for a favor. I want accurate info and good articles, that's all. Lostcaesar 18:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Assume that the nativity narrative of Jesus, with the wise men, the prophecies, the massacre, the angels, etc. is either true or not. Historians have reason to categorize the entire narrative as an invention, thus defining the gospels as including fiction. But there's no known reason for Herod to kill the sons of Bethlehem, unless this narrative is at least partially true. If Herod really did kill these boys, maybe he really did get a visit from wise men and maybe something supernatural (or at least remarkable) really did happen. At the least, historians would have to look again at the nativity story and at the gospels. If archeologiosts found proof that the massacre happened, it would open up a whole new window into the historical Jesus. When I say, "historians care," I mean "historians for whom this their field." How about "Scholars of the historical Jesus usually portray the massacre as a story invented to glorify Jesus, along with the rest of the nativity narrative"? Scholars of the historical Jesus sure care. Again, there's a world of difference, in terms of historical acceptance, between certain events in Jesus life (e.g., crucifixion) and other (e.g., massacre). It's a disservice to the reader to understate this difference. Jonathan Tweet 20:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, first, I don't think that, historically speaking, we have to take the prophecies, wise men, massacre, angels, &c as a bundle package. Furthermore, there is a third option between true or false, and that is "don't know", to varying degrees. As far as I know the part about the magi and the massacre contains no miracles per se (there is a vision that tells the holy family to flee, so I suppose that counts, but its not about Herod or the magi). Magi were astrologers / astronomers; they, a bit like sailors, followed stars frequently, and read portents into them. People also believed in prophecies. None of this is dipping into the supernatural. "Scholars of the historical Jesus" — that's getting there; me, I like prefer specifics rather than generalities in these things. I would feel even better if we had a source (well, we do — one — and we quote it). My style: get a source, represent it farily, and avoid gereralities not supported by the source. I would prefer "biblical scholars", since that's who the scholars of the historical Jesus are, basically. The crucifixion is more knowable because it is attested in all the canonical gospels, apocaphyral works, and Paul's letters. The massacre is in just one text, which makes discerning its veracity less possible. Lostcaesar 20:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
LC, your new wording was not more neutral. It was less informative. To portray the historical view as an open issue, rather than well decided, is to understate the case. You might be an expert on what Catholics say about the massacre. I feel equally qualified to say what secular scholars say about the account. Maybe this wording would be better: "Bible scholars working in faith traditions often treat this incident as historical, while those investigating the historical Jesus generally treat it as a fiction." That way we get both views. We could even put the faith view second so it gets the last word. But it is a disservice to the reader to be coy about the secular consensus when it is clear. Find me a prominent secular NT historian who regards the incident as real and I'll happily restore your wording. Jonathan Tweet 00:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
alright; Lostcaesar 08:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, after some investigation, I was not able to find much from historians regarding the event. There is only one biography of Herod that I know of, that of Grant mentioned before, and he thinks it was a legend. So, for historians, we are 0/1. That's not a very notable thing to bother mentioning. Concerning Biblical scholars (and as far as I know that's basically the same thing as "scholars of the historical Jesus") there was a variety of views. So, I rephrased the statement accordingly, noting that it is debated by Biblical scholars. Lostcaesar 15:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
"Scholars of the historical Jesus" and "Biblical scholars" are not the same thing. If you think they are, what would be your term be for the sorts of scholars who rely exclusively on the historical method to reconsruct Jesus. To portray this issue as debated is to be coy. It's a settled issue for secular historians (didn't happen) and for true believers (did happen). There is disagreement, but no debate. Maybe there are some like Raymond Brown who would debate whether it happened, but that's not "historical" Jesus any more. Jonathan Tweet 16:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

An Alternative Interpetation

The allegorical style of the 16th Century in the European Low Countries had a hidden meaning: in alchemy, the "massacre of the innocents" was the title of a process (involving spiritual renunciation) in one of the texts describing the transmutation of gold. In tangible terms, it led, for instance, to the mass-murder of children in the 1430s by Joan of Arc's chief lieutenant, Gilles de Rais - similar events on a smaller scale occur from time to time to this day. As such, the numerous paintings on this subject dating from the late Renaissance must be viewed alongside the more tangible Alchemical paintings and other associated allegories, such as the various Icarus and Labyrithmic images frequently portrayed. The interest of the painter in such studies was probably pragmatic: he was interested in the possibility of new pigments arising by accident from such proto-chemical studies.
As the Low Countries were under the Inquisitorial tyranny of the Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba, such heretical practices could not be mentioned explicitly - the execution of the Counts of Egmont and Hoorne, two of Alba's most trusted lieutenants (and the subject of Schiller's play for which Beethoven composed the famous Egmont overture) is a case in point, having been provoked by a Hoorne's Dominican confessor overhearing a plot to create a vast amount of wealth alchemically, which is reported to have succeeded. The practitioner in question subsequently sparks the interest of Jan van Helmont in chemistry.
Further to the Herodian discussion above, don't exclude Herod's plan to kill a stadium-full of hostages in his final hours. The antipathy of the Herodian line is specifically cited in Matthew 2:22 as the reason for Joseph's exile into Roman-controlled Judea: however, given the scale of Roman construction at Sebaste and Caesarea Maritime during this period, Nazareth being roughly halfway between the two, it's a fair presumption that as a building contractor (ho-tekton in the Greek does NOT mean carpenter, it's just the closest term in 17c. English) he was comfortably protected without having to restart overseas.
jelmain Brussels 03:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Bias

There seems to be a fair amount of bias in this article, towards the veracity of this event. I think since the article itself states, and all independent research I've done on my own assures, that the Bible is the only place this story appears, and there is no mention of it anywhere else ever, then weaseling in some comment about how "skeptical" scholars deny the existence but "others" think it happened. Clearly, those who are fans of fact and truth should not be labeled skeptics, as if they were the minority. The majority of scholars today cannot find proof that this event happened. Therefore, they are not skeptical. They are being factual. Vaguely 15:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Outdated sources

Why do we have sources as out of date as the Catholic Encyclopedia - from 1910, nearly a century out of date? And the source quoted in the reference is from even earlier, a book published in 1897. If no other source is available, these may be better than nothing, but Biblical scholarship has moved on so much in the past century that these references are virtually useless. Besides, the section has modern sources quoted; we don't need this one. Unless someone can come up with a useful explanation as to why the Catholic Encylopedia represents a valuable and still current view that is not elsewhere available, I propose to remove it again. --Rbreen (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Those with content contribute content. We await Rbreen's report of more recent mainstream scholarship, which will doubtless add some nuance to the outdated Catholic Encyclopedia and Maas' Life of Christ (1897). --Wetman (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
We have modern content; we ought not to depend on outdated citations. --Rbreen (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nimrod

Nimrod (Bible) mentions a parallel in the story of Moses and the story of Nimrod and Abraham, but I don't understand whether the Christian story is documented earlier than the Nimrod one or the other way round. --Error (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Massacre_of_the_Innocents/Archive_1&oldid=260760422"