Llyricist

It is reasonable to assume that books containing midrash, miracles and little else are "written and put forth as accurate record(s) of what happened"? On what planet?

Oh yeah..... Earth. :banghead:

Edited to fix "written and..... "

Kosh

What is the EVIDENCE for your particular view on Gospel Histories?

Yes, that's a trick question.

Jayrok

So this event was not significant enough to warrant a mention from Josephus. I noticed you linked an article from Holding where he writes this defense for the lack of reporting. In another article, Holding uses the same reasoning about why Jesus wasn't widely known in the region or by the authorities because Jesus was a "small speck" in the grand scheme of things in the 1st century. They didn't think he was a threat IOW because of this.

Yet, Josephus mentions Jesus (I'm sure you'll support that) in his writings. Point is, you use Holding to support an idea on the slaughter of the innocents, but his theory about Jesus being insignificant, was recorded by Josephus.

If Jesus was insignificant "to the empire", and Josephus only wrote about "big names" as you put it... why did he mention Jesus at all, and not things like the slaughter of the children?

One may say that Jesus was different because he was the messiah. Well, the children had everything to do with the messiah. The reason Herod wanted them killed was because one was rumored to be the new king Messiah. Why would that not be news-worthy?

He was not just killing random, insignificant children... he was trying to kill the future king and messiah of Israel.

FatherMithras

Funny, I've found the opposite to be true as well! The main problem is that the people who believe in the "supernatural" never have anything better then a picture of a ghost that we can prove to be faked or a blurred photo of aliens. They're fringe crazies who can't do science and that's why they don't get in peer reviewed mags. I used to LOVE and deeply believe in the supernatural until I actually looked at the proof for it... and lo and behold there was none. It was very emotionally saddening to abandon the belief, but as I've said before, the TRUTH is what's important, not emotional attachments to stories.

Jayrok

When christians canonized the bible, they should have left out Matthew.

The whole scene with Herod and baby Jesus is silly.

The Magi go home and Herod realizes they duped him, so he asks the Priests where the boy was to be born. They quote scripture and say he was to be born in Bethlehem. Two years may have passed, since he orders the slaying of kids 2 and under. So Jesus may have been one, or even two years old at this time...

Why was the Jesus family still in Bethlehem? According to Luke, the family was from Nazareth (80 miles away?). Why weren't they home safely in Nazareth when Jesus was two yrs old? Maybe they were visiting friends.. so why didn't they just go home?

Matthew just wanted to throw in as many prophecies (perceived) as possible for his readers. Which is another thing:

If the priests quoted the hebrew bible in that the king was to be born in Bethlehem (Matt 2:6)... why didn't they go and worship/welcome their messiah? Weren't they all waiting for their messiah?

You may say they were comfortable with Herod and didn't want a new king.. Ok, then why did they quote scripture as if It were prophecy? Why wouldn't they just tell Herod that this was a hoax, and he could just kill the baby "just to be sure he isn't really a king"? Herod didn't need biblical scripture to convince him to kill babies.

And why did these particular priests consider Micah 5:2 messianic in nature, enough to report it to Herod, but no other priests/Jews in the new testament knew anything about it? They didn't know who Jesus was when he began preaching. Why wouldn't those priests be reminded of Jesus fulfilling prophecies left and right as Matthew writes he does? They had no clue who this "messiah" was. It's as if they didn't even know their own scriptures.

His own family didn't think he was special (his own mother thought he was beside himself as reported in the gospels), yet an angel specifically told his mother he was going to be the king of the Jews and the son of God. I guess she forgot.

The whole thing reeks of fabrication and poor story telling.

darstec

That is really funny -- you writing that I am "unfamiliar with the language usage and the terrain". I studied for the priesthood and have a formal education in the study of ancient languages of Hebrew, Greek and Latin (and some modern ones too) as well as theology. I've kept up those studies over the last 30+ years though I am no longer a believer.

Let us look at the Greek: τοτε ηÏ?ωδης ιδων οτι ενεπαιχθη υπο των μαγων εθυμωθη λιαν και αποστειλας ανειλεν παντας τους παιδας τους εν βηθλεεμ και εν πασιν τοις οÏ?ιοις αυτης απο διετους και κατωτεÏ?ω κατα τον χÏ?ονον ον ηκÏ?ιβωσεν παÏ?α των μαγων

From the phase under discussion και εν πασιν τοις οÏ?ιοις translated as and about the whole region. Jerome translates that as et in omnibus finibus eius which translates much to the same and about the whole territory.

So region and territory are good definitions but can take the meaning of coasts depending upon proximity as we find in Pausanias, Description of Greece -- ta de eti archaiotera akra sphisi pros thalassêi horos ên ho Araxos translated as though of old the boundary was Cape Araxus on the coast.

Again the word is used in Plato's Republic Book 4, Page 423 translated as measure to indicate expanse.

There are a few hundred more examples in Classical Greek, many of which imply a large area, but those examples should suffice to demonstrate the point.

Let us look at another verse in Matthew: και καταλιπων την ναζαÏ?α ελθων κατωκησεν εις καφαÏ?ναουμ την παÏ?αθαλασσιαν εν οÏ?ιοις ζαβουλων και νεφθαλιμ particularly the phrase about the territories of Zabulon and Nephthali

The same word is used in the Septuagint in Exodus 13,7, Numbers 32:33, Deuteronomy 16:4, Deuteronomy 28:40, Joshua 21:42, Joshua 24:31, I Chronicles 6:39 and in about 8 other verses, all of which imply large areas.

Now let us look at a map showing Capernaum which was about the territories of Zebulon and Nephtali http://www.studylight.org/se/maps/normal/057a.jpg. Notice that Matthew referred to a rather large, encompassing territory. Using a later map of the same area showing Capernaum we see that the distance covered by the territories of Zebulon and Zephthali with Matthew using the same word {οÏ?ιοις} in both passages to designate a region, we find that Matthew is very generous in referring to land areas. http://http://www.studylight.org/se/maps/normal/099.jpg So why would you drop Jerusalem when Matthew obviously in these and several other passages tends to be more inclusive and expansive, unless you deliberately want to read the texts in such a way as to make the numbers small? The word's usage is not a limiting one but rather an encompasing one showing large areas.

Judging from the size of first century Jerusalem it could easily support a population of about 25,000 to 40,000 (if you include the outer areas) people. Sixty years after the Bethlehem incident, at the time of Titus' sacking of Jerusalem, Josephus claims the population was 3,000,000 while Tacitus says it was 600,000. Josephus claims that 18,000 workers in Jerusalem were left without work when Herod Aggripa stopped work on the Moriah Area adjacent to the Temple Mount. Now let us add a few more towns which would fall well within any range Matthew could well have intended (after all the heir apparent might well have moved to some neighboring town and Herod wasn't quite that stupid to not understand that) and we have Bethphage, Bethany, Beth bassi, Hyrcania, Herodium [hardly likely because it was Herod's fortress, but the child could well have been a relative so why take chances], Etam, Bethletepha, and Amasa. Note that the area is confined to a rough radius of about 7 miles which is far, far smaller than any of the regions {οÏ?ιοις} referred to in all the other passages I mentioned. No wonder you don't want to include Jerusalem.

Naturally you prefer to use the smaller number so that it looks like no big deal. You need such an excuse to explain why none of the historians would mention a large, well known massacre if it had actually occured. And to be exacting, the English word "old" is implied but not present in the Greek. Now remember the passage about Jesus rising on the third day? Will you admit the passage is wrong, or are you going to use the more inclusive way of counting to make that passage not be a lie? [It still is a lie because of another passage quoting what Jesus said, but that has been covered over and over again in other threads.]

I've already demonstrated that your 5,000 number is a minuscule portion of any believable population of the territory around Bethlehem most especially including Jerusalem. Why do you think Herod would be so silly as to not consider the possibility that the child had moved? Wouldn't the larger city of Jerusalem offer better employment opportunities to a carpenter {τεκτον}? And if one uses the more encompasing definition of the word for Joseph's (or Jesus') occupation could well have been one of the wealthier ones such as general contractor or even as the word is used in the LXX, a ship builder (and that certainly would explain Jesus' easy access to the wealthy and his familiarity with them). If Matthew had in mind a ship builder which could be suitable for Capernaum, he could also have envisioned Joseph moving to the seashore, though that idea is as fanciful as the ones Holding usually spews. I only used coasts because you seem to think the KJV is to be taken literally (except in this case where doing so spoils your idea).

As for your links, Holding we will discard immediately. The man has been shown to be an idiot and liar many times over the years, making things up as he goes along. I won't consider anyone an expert on things biblical unless they command a proficiency in the languages in which the bible was written. How else can they really know what it says?

The second link does a rather good job of destroying the historicity of the passage although in Mr. Carlsen's willingness to be fair and assume the passage is historical, he errors by not considering the significance of the word οÏ?ιοις in most of the verses in which it is used. In my estimation, apologists are most eager to forget that little phrase in Matthew every time.

Vorkosigan

I've learned over the years that most people who claim that methodological naturalism makes an a priori assumption simply have no evidence to support their beliefs. So thanks for the admission.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Which gospels were presented as fact? Mark isn't, Matthew arguably isn't.

Vorkosigan

FatherMithras

So it's safe to assume that the Herod thingy was crap.

absence of evidence may NOT be evidence of absence. however, the burden of proof still stands, and since Matthew's "gospel" is what you use as a positive statement has no support, it fails, as the very nice post by darstec has shown.

rlogan

<snip carnage and devastation>

owie. That hurt just watching the ass kicking.


I see you are a 2nd century advocate for GMark. Jolly good.

Now, about those epistles. On what we have come to speak of as "authentic" Pauline material, do you see these as very late 1st century, or perhaps even second century gnostic?