Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Seeker2000 · 07-09-2005, 05:44 PM

I just read a text from an apologist about the Massacre of the Innocents mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew.

To the argument that no one at all, other than Matthew, records the Massacre, he replies:

Quote:

[...]
A probable indirect reference to the massacre is found in the ASSUMPTION OF MOSES (dated around 10 AD), a document that refers to Herod as giving "bloodthirsty commands, as was done in Egypt." Presumably the comparison is with Pharaoh's trying to kill the male children of the Hebrews in the days of Moses. Jewish writers of Matthew's time explained that he did so because he had been warned by an oracle that a Hebrew boy born that year would be his doom. A parallel action for Herod would be killing the babies of a village on the basis of a rumor or prediction that a threat to his throne had just been born there. The massacre of the children at Bethlehem is therefore a reasonable candidate, and the only one I know of, for the event that the ASSUMPTION is referring to. Thus we have what appears to be a reference to the Massacre of the Innocents by an independent source, a writer who was fairly close in time to the events he describes, and too early to be influenced by Christian ideas or stories about Jesus.

Link: http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRIS.../infancy2.html

At Peter Kirby's Early Jewish Writings website I found a link to the online version of the Assumption (or Testament) of Moses.

I guess this is the part he is referring to:

Quote:

And he shall cut off their chief men with the sword, and shall destroy them in secret places, so that no one may know where their bodies are. He shall slay the old and the young, and he shall not spare. Then the fear of him shall be bitter unto them in their land. And he shall execute judgments on them as the Egyptians executed upon them, during thirty and four years, and he shall punish them. And he shall beget children, (who) succeeding him shall rule for shorter periods.

What do you think, could this be a reference to the Massacre of the Innocents?
What do scholars think about it?

He has arguments why Josephus and Luke might have had reasons not to mention the massacre, but that doesn't mean that Matthew could not have very well invented it. If on the contrary there were other independent references to it, this would be in favor of the authenticity of the event.

Wallener · 07-09-2005, 07:07 PM

In general, using non-canonical works to trump canonical works opens a rather serious pandora's box for apologists...

Seeker2000 · 07-09-2005, 07:37 PM

Well, I think in this case the argument is not that everything from the Assumption of Moses (which I haven't even read in its entirety) must be true, but rather that if such a massacre had indeed taken place, it could have influenced the author of this text and thus be an independent reference to the event.

Diogenes the Cynic · 07-09-2005, 08:07 PM

The apologist has the date wrong for one thing. Most people date the Assumption of Moses to the middle of the first century or later (although some material is believed to have been written during the Maccabean period, the Herod material is regarded as mid first century redaction.

The other thing is that he is reading way to much into the phrase "executing judgement." Being tyrannical does not equate to slaughering children in Bethlehem. That kind of leap is not warranted. Matthew's slaughter is not only historically uncorroborated, even in the other Gospels, it's patently absurd for any number of reasons

Seeker2000 · 07-09-2005, 08:13 PM

I think he's not talking about "executing judgement", but about "executing judgement as the Egyptians did upon them" which could be understood as an allusion to the story of the killing of the male children of the Hebrews by the Pharao (see Wikipedia on Moses). But I'm not sure if the author could not simply have meant something else with his allusion to the Egyptians.

Wallener · 07-09-2005, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeker2000

...I think in this case the argument is not that everything from the Assumption of Moses...must be true...

That makes the problem worse. Either the work isn't inspired - in which case it strikes against the claim of inspiration for any canonical works supposedly influenced by it - or it is inspired - in which case you have to ask why the material isn't part of the canon.

Seeker2000 · 07-09-2005, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallener

That makes the problem worse. Either the work isn't inspired - in which case it strikes against the claim of inspiration for any canonical works supposedly influenced by it - or it is inspired - in which case you have to ask why the material isn't part of the canon.

Well, personally I don't think that anything is inspired in any way, but your way of argumentation doesn't work nevertheless. That guy never claimed that the "Assumption" was inspired, but he also never claimed that any canonical text was influenced by it. His argument is that maybe in the Assumption text a reference to a historical event could be found, which was later fully told in the canonical text of Matthew (be it inspired or not).

Amaleq13 · 07-09-2005, 10:37 PM

First, the text refers executed judgments, in the plural. That doesn't sound like a reference to the singular actions of an individual.

Second, I don't see how the depiction of Herod ordering the children to be murdered could, in any way, be considered a "judgment". That implies a punishment for a crime rather than a way to prevent losing one's throne.

Seeker2000 · 07-10-2005, 08:16 AM

The apologist quotes the text as "commands" - that would fit better with it. But I don't know which translation is more correct. In any case it seems to be plural and there's also talk of "during thirty and four years", so you're correct that this sounds like more than one action Herod performed.

Still, maybe the reference to Egypt could refer to a single action. But this could be something completely different than the killing of the male children. Maybe someone with more knowledge about Jewish and Egyptian history could tell something about this.

If it indeed refers to the killing of the male children, this could also just be a comparison made to emphasize his cruelty in general.

EDIT: I also found a third translation on the Usenet:

Quote:

And a wanton king, who will not be of a priestly family, will follow them. He will be a man rash and perverse, and he will judge them as they deserve. He will shatter their leaders with the sword, and he will (exterminate?) them in secret places so that no one will know where their bodies are. He will kill both old and young, showing mercy to none. Then fear of him will be heaped upon them in their land, and for thirty-four years he will impose judgments upon them as did the Egyptians, and he will punish them.

From "Old Testament Pseudepigrapha" (ed. Charlesworth).

Source

Seeker2000 · 07-10-2005, 08:48 AM

Interesting, this is from a Muslim apologist, claiming that the "Assumption" predicts Mohammed, because it states that the 'kingdom of God' is to be established 1750 years after the death of Moses, which fits with the birth of Mohammed, the prophet of Islam: http://www.renaissance.com.pk/Decscrip2y3.html

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-09-2005, 07:07 PM	#2
Wallener Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vancouver Posts: 1,043	In general, using non-canonical works to trump canonical works opens a rather serious pandora's box for apologists...

07-09-2005, 07:37 PM	#3
Seeker2000 Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Germany Posts: 393	Well, I think in this case the argument is not that everything from the Assumption of Moses (which I haven't even read in its entirety) must be true, but rather that if such a massacre had indeed taken place, it could have influenced the author of this text and thus be an independent reference to the event.

07-09-2005, 08:07 PM	#4
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	The apologist has the date wrong for one thing. Most people date the Assumption of Moses to the middle of the first century or later (although some material is believed to have been written during the Maccabean period, the Herod material is regarded as mid first century redaction. The other thing is that he is reading way to much into the phrase "executing judgement." Being tyrannical does not equate to slaughering children in Bethlehem. That kind of leap is not warranted. Matthew's slaughter is not only historically uncorroborated, even in the other Gospels, it's patently absurd for any number of reasons

07-09-2005, 08:13 PM	#5
Seeker2000 Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Germany Posts: 393	I think he's not talking about "executing judgement", but about "executing judgement as the Egyptians did upon them" which could be understood as an allusion to the story of the killing of the male children of the Hebrews by the Pharao (see Wikipedia on Moses). But I'm not sure if the author could not simply have meant something else with his allusion to the Egyptians.

07-09-2005, 10:37 PM	#8
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	First, the text refers executed judgments, in the plural. That doesn't sound like a reference to the singular actions of an individual. Second, I don't see how the depiction of Herod ordering the children to be murdered could, in any way, be considered a "judgment". That implies a punishment for a crime rather than a way to prevent losing one's throne.

07-10-2005, 08:48 AM	#10
Seeker2000 Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Germany Posts: 393	Interesting, this is from a Muslim apologist, claiming that the "Assumption" predicts Mohammed, because it states that the 'kingdom of God' is to be established 1750 years after the death of Moses, which fits with the birth of Mohammed, the prophet of Islam: http://www.renaissance.com.pk/Decscrip2y3.html

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.