Orthodox_Freethinker

No, Herod's slaughtering of the infants wasn't big news. If it was already common knowledge that Herod was tyrannical, why write down that he slaughtered a few babies in a small village?

I used Saddam as a comparison in that it's not very surprising that a tyrranical ruler would kill babies.

Given that Herod was more or less a maniac, the story isn't surprising.

Mageth

Alleged slaughtering of infants. There's no support outside of the Matthew account that it actually happened. And again, Matthew was creating a fiction that paralleled an event in the life of Moses.

You've gone on and on about how the negative evidence that no one is recorded to have tried to disprove Jesus' alleged resurrection is evidence in support of Jesus' resurrection.

Now you're arguing against the fact that no one outside Matthew reported Herod's alleged atrocity is not evidence that it didn't happen???

No one said it is. And your point, and comparison, are still irrelevant. The fact that it's not surprising that a tyrant might kill babies does not lend support to the historicity of the Herod account in Matthew.

How do you know Herod was a "maniac"? From the story?

Orthodox_Freethinker

If it was already common knowledge that Herod would commit such atrocities, there doesn't need to be such outside support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

http://encyclopedia.com/html/h/herod.asp

"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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacr...ts#Historicity

funinspace

OF, I'm not sure what you are not getting here, but I will try this again.

My words:
Notice that I did not place an earliest date, I only posited the late date of 120AD.

Your words:
Notice how you placed it by 100AD, ergo not at all in the 2nd century.

I asked (notice the word "definitively"):
Now you provide this as evidence of secular opinion backing up a 1st century dating???
WTF? You own words back up a potential 2nd century dating. I would not quibble with 115AD vice 120AD. If that's all that it would take to make OF happy, I can live with that date as well. So tell me, if John was in final composition in 115AD, do you really think it was definitively John was doing it? That's 85 years after Jesus picked up the disciple. That would put him at least 100 years old for the furthest out dating. You know of many people who are good at telling/writing information when they are 100+?

It's nice that Irenaeus knew that John wrote GoJ, but I was also answering someone else's question. However, all he knew was what someone else wrote or told him, he didn't know jack. There are also many (not majority) Christian scholars who don't know such (I know...they probably think the earth is flat as well).

Mageth

So you assume it's probably true because (or in spite of the fact that) no one outside Matthew recorded it?

I hope you read the rest of those articles.

Matt the Medic

Let us not forget that the average life expectancy in the first century BCE was about 30 years.

Matt

funinspace

Though that stat may be technically true, I would suspect it's that low due to childhood deaths. I don't think it was that uncommon for people to live into their 60's or 70's even back then with marginally decent sanitation and food. The average shmuck might not have lived past 50, or such, though. What information we get is mostly thru royalty, in terms of potential life span, which probably overstates it somewhat as well due to their very uncommon life style.

So if a Christain was arguing in favor of John living even to 80 and still writing/providing an oral transcription, I would not really quibble, since is is possible, even if only marginally plausible.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Notice, this is a Wikipedia article. The article itself does not specify what it means by 'traditional date', which probably refers to the date traditionally given within the scholarly community. However, modern scholarship would not require this late of a date. Furthermore, neither would the testimony of the early Church.

Orthodox_Freethinker

I am saying is that there would be no need for someone outside to record it.

Matt the Medic

Even assuming the high infant mortality rate, the life expectancy at 5 was roughly 45 and at 20 was roughly 50. 80 would be an anomaly. So while I don't doubt that it would be possible, it's not probable.

Matt