Bobzammel

There seems to be a few problems with Matthew's story....

1)Wasn't Persia an enemy of Rome at the time? The Magi probably came from that area. Therefore Herod would be in serious trouble hanging around with them.

2) Since they were practicers of a rival religion(Magi are Zoroastarian), wasn't that considered taboo in Jewish law?

3) Once again, how come Josepheus never recorded the infant massacre?

4)How come Herod was not removed or severely rebuked by Rome for killing the infants? Pilate-who also figures in the Bible-after all-was removed for atrocities years later. Why would Rome tolerate such an inciddent by one of their regional governors?

5)Herod's soldiers were also not the most loyal sort. His final order-to murder all Jewish nobles-was never carried out. If they would not murder Jewish nobles, I doubt they would murder babies!

6)Isn't the story kind of contradictory with Luke's account? The Luke one seems more humble, with sheperds and a manger, instead of the drama of Matthew, with Jesus in a house and the Magi, Herod and everything else.

7)In Luke's account, Herod should be already DEAD eleven years if Quirinus was in charge of Syria! So either Jesus was magically born twice or there is a serious problem here.

8)It says in Matthew Joseph and Mary immeadiatly fled to Egypt until Herod was dead. However in Luke it says they stuck around in Israel for a week and apparentally never went to Egypt afterwards. They could not have simply made it back-and-forth from Israel to Egypt in a mere week anyway. Using first century transportation(camels, mainly) it would take them roughly two weeks.

Any apologetics etc. care to explain?

Biff the unclean

1)Wasn't Persia an enemy of Rome at the time? The Magi probably came from that area. Therefore Herod would be in serious trouble hanging around with them.

Yes and no. There were a great many Persians in the Roman Legions. They were based mostly in Gaul and Britian.
Mithraism was all the rage in Rome. In fact they had a big temple on the very spot they built the Vatican. You can still see parts of it in the sub-basement.
If the Magi were checking the stars they would be looking for signs of the second coming of the Demigod Mithra. They wouldn't have given a rats pertootee about a Jewish Messiah

semyaza

If you line up Matthew's account with Luke's, it becomes pretty obvious that they are two completely different stories. Aside from Jesus being born in Bethlehem, the two narratives have nothing whatsoever in common.

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: semyaza ]</p>

Biff the unclean

Another interesting, to me at least, Magi tid-bit is in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. If those nut cases over there ever stop shooting at one another long enough for you to visit. The cave that is the stable that the Jesus character was supposed to have been born in is underneath the church. The only opening is through a hole in the caves ceiling. Unless you carry horses and cows down the ladder on your shoulders the joint is a piss poor stable. What it is is another Temple to Mithra. There would have been Magi there 24/7… but not many babies being born.

Daniel_AnglumTM

You shouldnt get a small thing like the truth get in the way of a good story! Jesus if he existed may well have been born in Bethlehem but this tale is ALMOST the most daft one in the Gospels.

Janaya

Just some thoughts regarding these statements. They may not have placed the same value on children as we do today, and placed much more value on nobility than we do. I would think that most of the murdered infants would have been peasants. And killing a bunch of peasant infants may not have been as bad as killing the ruling class adults. Though I find it abhorrent, they may have felt just the reverse of what we do.

Even if the society as a whole did not value children as much as we do I would think that their parents did. What I find even more curious is, if it were true, why there was no response from the parents. Revolutions have been fought for much less, and killing a man's first born son in those times I'm sure (to put it mildly) royally pissed off a lot of daddies. So why was there no peasant uprising, or at least skirmishes from outrage? Are there other instances in history where something similar had occurred and what were the results?

Are my comments reasonable?
Or am I way off base?
(I'm certainly not a historian or bible expert.)

Peace,
Janaya

Kosh

I think you have to read a lot between the lines to get that from the story.

So, are you claiming that would be no children of ruling class people "in Bethlehem and all it's vicinity?"

The whole story smacks of copying from Moses' childhood, and that my friend, is Occams Razor!

Edited to add: Josephus, who has no qualms about detailing Herod's many attrocities, never mentions this one.

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kosh ]</p>

Janaya

Not at all. I was simply responding to Bobzammel's statements. I think that it is conceivable that the soldiers might not think that killing babies would be worse than killing adult nobility. It may be a mistake to project our modern morality upon ancient people. If their morals were the same as ours then Bobzammel's argument would have much more weight.

You mean (gasp) it's not original?
Why am I not surprised?

Edited to add:

This (to me) is a much more solid argument than whatever qualms the soldiers may or may not have had.

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Janaya ]</p>

offa

3) Once again, how come Josephus never recorded the
infant massacre?

Offa; "The definition of an infant in Scripture
is not quite the same as our contemporary definition.
A one year old Child, for instance, was a twelve year
old. Children and infants were classed as novices.
Jesus went to school as a twelve year old when he
was, in fact, twenty-three years old. He graduated
3 (jubilee) days later. A Jubilee day is a year, so,
Jesus, at twenty-five years of age is no longer a
Child. I would say that children and infants can be
used interchangeably. Possibly those that had not
yet achieved the third year of this school making
them two years or younger. Joseph was born in
44 b.c.e. making him forty years old when the
slaughter of the innocent children occured. I do
not know if he was one of the captured nobles that
were released by Salome or not."

4) How come Herod was not removed or severely rebuked
by Rome for killing the infants? Pilate-who also figures
in the Bible-after all-was removed for atrocities years
later. Why would Rome tolerate such an incident by one
of their regional governors?

Offa; "Herod died shortly after the incident and the
children were not executed. They were released by
his sister Salome. Pilate spent over ten years in Judea.
Just because a Christian literature may say he was
punished for atrocities does not mean it really was
the case."

5) Herod's soldiers were also not the most loyal sort. His
final order-to murder all Jewish nobles-was never carried
out. If they would not murder Jewish nobles, I doubt they
would murder babies!

Offa; "I believe we are talking about the same verses in
Josephus. However, the babies are the Jewish nobles."

6) Isn't the story kind of contradictory with Luke's
account? The Luke one seems more humble, with shepherds
and a manger, instead of the drama of Matthew, with Jesus
in a house and the Magi, Herod and everything else.

Offa, "Matthew and Luke were of different cults with Matthew
being a Jew and Luke being a Samaritan. They follow
different histories and use different calenders. Jacob
and Heli are the same person with Matthew following a
Jewish 40 year generation and Luke following a Samaritan
25 year generation."

7) In Luke's account, Herod should be already DEAD eleven
years if Quirinus was in charge of Syria! So either Jesus
was magically born twice or there is a serious problem here.

Offa, "Jesus was born in 7 b.c.e. and celebrated his bar
mitzvah in 6 c.e. The babe in the manger was 12 years
old but was considered a 1 year-old Child."

8) It says in Matthew Joseph and Mary immediately fled to
Egypt until Herod was dead. However in Luke it says they
stuck around in Israel for a week and apparently never
went to Egypt afterwards. They could not have simply made
it back-and-forth from Israel to Egypt in a mere week
anyway. Using first century transportation (camels, mainly)
it would take them roughly two weeks.

Offa; "The Biblical Egypt was an area adjoining the Dead Sea.
Just like Damascus, Tyre, and Galilee; Egypt was local to
Jerusalem."

BTW, there were more than one Bethlehem.

thanks, Offa

Grumpy

True enough. In Matthew, Jesus is approximately 2 years old, so it isn't a "birthday" story at all. It can still be a "nativity" story, since the word encompasses where you're from, as well as where you're born.

Matthew 2:1 says "After Jesus was born..." not "the day Jesus was born." Further, Matthew 2:16 describes how Herod "gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi." (NIV)

Some scrupulous depictions correctly omit the star and the Magi from the manger scene. Others aren't so careful.