Massacre of the innocents

Objection that there are no records of a massacre of infants by Herod

An objection to the historical accuracy of Matthew’s account of Jesus’s birth is that there are no historical records outside the Bible of Herod killing infant sons in the city of Bethlehem. However, though this is a valid question, this is not proof that the account in Matthew did not happen.

Bethlehem as prophesied in Micah 5:2 was a small village with a small population at the time of Jesus’ birth. The population is estimated to have been around 300-1500, the number of boys under two years in a population this size would not be that many, some estimates being around 7-50, and this in a time where young children died at young ages more often than they do now. If Herod wanted to hide this by threatening families to silence it may have not been widely known. Josephus also was writing with a Greco-Roman culture in mind where infanticide was a form of birth control, he may have thought that it would have seemed insignificant to his audience and therefore did not include it. (Paul L. Maier, 1998:179) We also know that Josephus did not write an exhaustive list of Herod’s atrocities and this one would not be surprising for him to have left out, since it probably would not have mattered much to his audience.

We however know that this event is well within Herod’s personality. Herod violently reacting to a rumor over the threat to his throne was a pattern. We also know that in the last four years of his life when this event is claimed to have occurred, he was at his worst. It is an event that fits well with his character at the time. In the article The Slaughter of the Innocents: Historical Fact or Legendary Fiction? it states:

In 1988 I was attending a lecture at the Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies by Dr. Isaiah Gafni, a leading authority on the Second Temple period at the Hebrew University. His topic was the life of Herod the Great. Sitting next to me was Dr. Bruce Narramore, a Christian psychologist from Biola University.
Dr. Gafni recounted a seminar that was held at Hebrew University a few years before. Attending it were historians and archaeologists of the Second Temple period as well as psychiatrists and psychologists. They laid out (figuratively speaking) Herod the Great on the psychiatric couch and preceded to psychoanalyze him. The historians explained a recurring pattern in the life of Herod. He would hear a rumor that somebody was going to bump him off and take over his throne, but Herod would kill that person first. He would then go into depression. After awhile he would come out of his depression and would build, build, build. He would hear another rumor and would kill that person, then go into another depression. After awhile he would come out of this depression and would build, build, build. This cycle repeated itself a number of times in which numerous people were killed, including one of his ten wives as well as three of his sons! The shrinks diagnosed Herod the Great as a paranoid schizophrenic.
After the lecture I turned to Dr. Narramore and asked his analysis of Herod: “Well, do you think he was a paranoid schizophrenic?” Bruce laughed and said, “No, he was a jerk!” [That is a direct quote!]. Recently a historical / psychological analysis was done on Herod the Great and he was diagnosed with Paranoid Personality Disorder (Kasher and Witztum 2007:431).

The time before Herod’s death was full of uncertainty about who would inherit his kingdom and uncertainty about his status within the Roman empire. It was also a time of unrest with “messiahs” rising up and unrest and rebellion. So, for a man who did not want the eye of the empire on him and already was paranoid about being usurped, the news the Magi brought him that the king of the Jews had been born would have been disturbing. Not only would it have been disturbing to him, but also to Jerusalem which had already experienced his reactions to rumors of another king rising not in his line. Herod around this time killed Pharisees who had prophesied that Herod’s line would decline and the line of Pheroras would rise after Pheroras’ wife paid a fine placed on the Pharisees. So, we have a time when anticipation for the Messiah was high, there was instability in Herod’s own house, there was tension for Herod to please Rome, and Jerusalem had already seen how Herod had responded to potential threats to his kingdom. So, it is no wonder that Matthew used the word “troubled” to describe the mood when this news was brought to Herod. Herod would not only want to kill these infants who he saw as a potential threat to his throne but seeing that the rumor extended outside his court would also want to squash any rumors of a possible king of the Jews. We know historically that fear can be a powerful motivation in keeping people silent. Even without any interference, there would be fear to talk about another king, not in Herod’s line. Squashing the rumor would not be out of the realm of possibility.

The story would however have been known to Jesus and his family. Both Jesus and his family walked intimately with those who would become the church and would have been asked to tell their story. Thus, this becoming common knowledge in the church would be expected. And through the church, this event became common knowledge to the world. Since this story came early in church history, those that were still alive would have been able to discredit it if it were not true. And even after this, those who had known the family of Jesus and had heard the stories firsthand would have been able to discredit the story. Yet you see no early writing questioning this account. But then I would suppose this would be an argument from silence, which cannot be used to discredit this story.

It might be argued that Matthew made up the story to fit it into prophecy. But why would he need to do that? His gospel alludes to many prophesies already, and there are other prophesies he did not include that he could have used. Matthew’s account is not an exhaustive study of how Jesus fulfilled all the prophesies. Why add a made-up story when it would not be necessary? And if you are going to make up a story, why add in the Magi? Magi would have been controversial. They weren’t just “wise men” for the word magi refer to people who practice magic or astrology, something contrary to the Jewish culture. If the Jewish scribes were able to ascertain the place of the messiah’s birth, why have a heathen magi come and determine the timing of the birth? Many of the day were already anticipating that the messiah was near. Why not use a wise Jew, after all, Jesus said that the scribes and Pharisees ought to have understood the signs of the time? Why not use Simeon and Anna who were aware of the coming birth of Jesus, and even proclaimed it to others? Why not have Herod hear these rumors after Anna and Simeon told others and then . . .?

The silence found in history is not proof that it didn’t happen, it is a question to be addressed, but not proof. Anyone purporting it to be such is claiming to know more than reason can allow. Claiming it as proof creates its own questions that have to be ignored in order to hold on to that stance as absolute fact. The argument of silence has been used many times before only later to find evidence to validate the Biblical account. I am not saying that the argument of silence cannot ever be used, but it must be used carefully. It is within reason and probable for the story to come out and to have been told in history the way it did through the gospel of Matthew. Therefore, there is no proof whatsoever that this account is false or a contradiction in the Bible.