Roland

I have always heard that there is no extrabiblical support for Herod's slaughtering of the innocents after Jesus' birth. When I mentioned that at another site, an apologist claimed that a 5th Century Roman historian named Macrobius (not a Christian, I assume) does indeed make mention of it, and that, in fact, he claims that one of Herod's own sons fell victim in the event.

Now, I realize that the 5th Century is a long time after the alleged event, but would a non-Christian historian have any reason to confirm this story if he didn't have some kind of documentation for it?

Does anyone have any knowledge of Macrobius and what it was, if anything, he actually said on the topic? Thanks.

Toto

From the Catholic Encyclopedia This sounds like a confusion between the Biblical story of Herod killing infants and a more historical story of Herod killing his own son for treason.

Macrobius

Roland

Toto, Thanks for your response, though I'm still confused about it all. So is even the Catholic Encyclopedia implying that Macrobius is off the mark here? Could it be that by the 5th Century the story of Herod's massacre of the inocents was so well known that even non-Christians would be making up quotes to put into Augustus' mouth as if the event had actually happened?

Toto

Even the Catholics say that this quote does not necessarily show that Macrobius thought that Herod had slaughtered the innocents.

The quote apparently had nothing to do with Herod's massacre of the innocents. It related to a different killing - Herod did kill his own son for conspiring to kill Herod.

It is possible that Macrobius reported that Augustus made this comment based on hearing about Herod's massacre of the innocents and his own son (who was not under 2 years old). The gospels had been in circulation for a few centuries by then, and Macrobius might well know something about them. It seems equally possible that a later Christian copyist inserted the reference to the slaughter of the innocents, and the original only referred to Herod killing his own son. The pun in Augustus' remark only related to Herod's own son, not the other innocents.

We don't know much about Macrobius. He might have been a Christian.

He was last mentioned on the boards here where you can read the passage in Latin, quoted by JoeWallach:

unknown4

I wonder where this guy was even writing from. In the 5th century, was it even legal to be a non-Christian or non-Jew living in the "Holy Roman Empire" or whatever it was at the time?

andrewcriddle

It would have still been legal in Rome in the 5th century to have been a non-Christian but not IIUC to practice pagan sacrificial rituals.

However being a non-Christian at that date would have been an obstacle to senior government office.

Since Macrobius appears to have been prefect of Italy in 431, he was probably at least a nominal Christian.

Andrew Criddle