rationalOne

From what I've read there is no extrabiblical evidence the the Massacre of the Innocents as depicted in Matthew Chapter 2:It seems bizzarre that the writer(s) of Matthew would attempt to invent a story of such magnitude so close to the time of the supposed event. Even Josephus did not mention it. Did readers of the Gospels in the first century take issue with this?

gregor

It wasn't challenged probably because it was never intended to be literally true.

It's a recapiluation of the Exodus story. In the OT god kills the first born and the Jews flee from Egypt. In Matt Herod kills the 2 year olds, and Jesus escapes into and then returns from Egypt.

It's those folks after 300 CE that decided it was meant to be literal.

Clivedurdle

Let's hear it for the King of Judea

Terry Jones - ex python has just had a brilliant radio programme about this - link is correct - not sure it is working - even a senior Cof E bishop commented its a myth - poor old herod was a good guy by the standards of the day!

dongiovanni1976x

Why do we assume it was not taken literally, or at least that it was intended to convey real events -however exaggerated they may be?
:huh:

Mageth

One reason is because Matthew is a recasting of the story of Jesus that is clearly intended to model Jesus on Moses, to make Jesus a "new Moses", and which thus "spun" or "midrashed" various events from the myth of Moses and the Exodus into Jesus' life. That (midrashing) was an accepted method of linking a "prophet" figure such as Jesus into Hebrew mythology among the Hebrews.

In other words, the intent of Matthew was not to "convey" real events - Matthew is not an historical document, nor was it intended to be a literal, historical account - but to fit Jesus into Hebrew mythological "history".

Heurismus

Yep, BBC Radio 4 is one of the best and I heard Terry give a really pleasurable account. I'd like to add that there is even a King Herod Appreciation Society over here, and I think it too is brilliant. Take a look, I dare you Christian onlookers! (jokingly)

http://www.kingherod.org.uk/

Quote; 'As an example, we think that Monty Python's Life of Brian says at least as much that is valid about religion as any other religious commentary you can name (and if you can't laugh at your own religion, we ask you -- how strong is your faith, really? Just How Lovely Are Your Tents?) '

Vivisector

Mageth provided a good description of the method of Midrash. On his way to showing that Jesus was more than a prophet, more than Moses, he includes this passage as an obvious parallel between the two's lives.

Regarding the remainder of your comments/questions, I don't find it all that unusual given that the author was writing maybe 80 or more years after the alleged slaughter; given the average lifespan at the time, the author could safely assume that no living eyewitnesses were going to dispute the account. It's also fair to question whether the author, who was probably writing for an audience in a different location (Syria?), ever would have anticipated that his work would become so popular and subjected to critical scrutiny - especially of the type currently practiced.

Cheers,

V.

Juliana

The background of the so-called Massacre of the Innocents is the following.

From Francesco Carotta, 'Jesus was Caesar':
"Herod’s slaughter of the innocents is not only based on the fact that
Herodes indeed ordered children killed, namely his own, which he had
from the Hasmonean heir Mariamme, but originally also on Octavianus,
because a few months before his birth it was heralded in Rome by
a portent that Nature was pregnant with a king for the Roman people.
Thereupon frightened the Senate decreed that no male child born that
year should be reared; but the men whose wives were pregnant saw to
it that the decree was never ratified. [...]"

Juliana

rationalOne

Well you learn something new every day here on iidb - I'd never heard the term "midrash".

Still one has to wonder how people kept their "real" histories separate from their mythical ones.

Amaleq13

Have you considered the possibility that they made no such distinction?