The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

J C

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well, here's the thing Christians continue to get wrong. The bible wasn't written in English. In Luke's case it was written in Koine Greek. In the original text the phrase "as was supposed" is given as:

ων υιος, ως ενομιζετο (oon huios, hoos enomizeto)

Now let's break this phrase down.

The first part ων υιος simply means "he was the son of".

The second part ως ενομιζετο is the crucial bit. ως is the particle used to compare, and can be translated as "as, like, as though, as if," ενομιζετο is the aorist passive tense of the verb νομιζω ( "I suppose/consider"), so basically ενομιζετο means "He was supposed/considered." When you put it all together the whole phrase should read "He was the son of, as he was considered". So Luke is telling the audience that, although he knows that Jesus isn't the physical son of Joseph, he was considered his son, so he is going to use Joseph in the genealogy.

Luke is telling the audience that, because he knows that Jesus isn't the physical son of Joseph, he is going to use Mary's genealogy via Joseph and then via her paternal line as convention demanded.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

No, I mean father to son, without exception. There is no precedent or any other example of a man's lineage being traced through his mother's side of the family.

This was an exception, because Mary was His only Earthly parent and therefore Jesus lineage via Mary's genealogy was important.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Luke's lineage explicitly states that it traces Joseph's lineage and no other internal or external evidence suggests that this is Mary's lineage. Apologists have offered assertions and speculation over the years that this is Mary's lineage but it is merely to avoid the obvious contradiction.

There is no contradiction the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are obviously two different lineages ... one Joseph's and the other Mary's.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You see, the genealogical contradiction is just one symptom of the overall contradiction between Matthew and Luke when it comes to the nativity narrative. At every point in the story Matthew and Luke contradict each other. For example:

In Matthew's gospel Jesus is born during the reign of King Herod (Matthew 2:3). In Luke's gospel Jesus is born at the time of the census of Quirinius (Luke 2:1-2). King Herod died in 4BCE while Quirinius wasn't even appointed governor until 6 CE. This means that both accounts can't be true.

Herod died in 4 BC allright ... but it seems that although Varus was governor, he was not a good leader, while Quirinius was a significant military leader ... so when it came to the census, which was a taxation mechanism, liable to generate trouble, Caesar Augustus sent Quirinius to conduct the Census thereby effectively elevating Quirinius to the position of a governing authority—even higher than the actual Governor Varus during that time. Quirinius was so successful that he was later appointed Governor. Some historians believe that Quirinius was actual governor of Syria twice - before and after Varus ... which would again mean that he was the governing authority when the Census called in 7 BC was conducted between 7 and 5 BC when, Jesus was born (there is a calendar inaccuracy issue that places Jesus birth in 6 BC).

oldrnwisr wrote: »

In Matthew's gospel Jesus is born in a house and Joseph and Mary are evidently living there already (no mention is made of travelling to Bethlehem). (Matthew 2:11). In Luke's gospel Joseph and Mary are living in Nazareth and have to travel to Bethlehem (because everyone had to go back to the city where their ancestors from 1000 years ago lived apparently) and thus, not having a house, Jesus is born in a stable. (Luke 2:7)

Luke is an account of the events immediately surrounding the birth of Jesus such as his birth in the temporary accommodation of a stable, because they were away from their home and the local Inn was booked out. Matthew's account is primarily focussed on events well after the birth of Jesus, such as the visit of the wise men and the slaughter of all chidren under two years by Herod, thereby indicating that Jesus wasn't a newborn, at the time ... and was naturally living in a house, having obviously left the temporary accommodation, that the stable provided on the night that He was born.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

In Matthew's gospel Joseph takes Mary and Jesus into Egypt as soon as the Magi are gone and remains there until after Herod's death. They then move to Nazareth in fulfillment of a prophecy (He shall be called a Nazarene) which funnily enough appears nowhere in the OT and seems to have been fabricated by Matthew. (Matthew 2:13-23).
Mt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

This is a turn of phrase indicating the general contempt that Jesus would be held as indicated by the OT Prophets. Nazareth, as a large Roman garrison town was held in contempt by the Jews and this is reflected in the dismissal in Jn 1:46 "Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

In Luke's gospel Joseph and Mary wait around in Bethlehem for 8 days for purification reasons and then travel to Jerusalem, for Jesus to be presented at the Temple. Jesus, Joseph and Mary then return quietly and peacefully to Nazareth where they came from (Luke 2:21-22, 39). It should also be noted that in Matthew's gospel Joseph's original intent was to return to Bethlehem but that he was afraid of returning to Judea because Archelaus had taken his father's place on the throne. An angel then warn's Joseph not to go back to Judea and instead move (not return) to Nazareth to fulfill the made-up prophecy.

Again these are two accounts from two perspectives.
Luke is focussed on the events immediately surrrounding the birth of Jesus ... and he then skips on to twelve years later with the account of Jesus teaching in the temple.
Matthew is focussed on the events of the childhood of Jesus i.e. his first 2 years.

J C

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Very impressive! From geneticist to Biblical scholar. God bless your breadth of knowledge.

... so you believe in the Triune God then????
... and call on Him for blessing???

robindch

J C wrote: »

... so you believe in the Triune God then????

Going out on a limb here, but it's more likely to be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, bless his holy passata.

No doubt Professor Moriarty will correct me if it's some other deity, major or minor, past or present, slightly made up or completely made up.

Professor Moriarty

robindch wrote: »

Going out on a limb here, but it's more likely to be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, bless his holy passata.

No doubt Professor Moriarty will correct me if it's some other deity, major or minor, past or present, slightly made up or completely made up.

Mammon.

oldrnwisr

J C wrote: »

Luke is telling the audience that, because he knows that Jesus isn't the physical son of Joseph, he is going to use Mary's genealogy via Joseph and then via her paternal line as convention demanded

This was an exception, because Mary was His only Earthly parent and therefore Jesus lineage via Mary's genealogy was important.

There is no contradiction the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are obviously two different lineages ... one Joseph's and the other Mary's.

There's no point in repeating your baseless assertions unless you're going to back them up with evidence.

J C wrote: »

Herod died in 4 BC allright ... but it seems that although Varus was governor, he was not a good leader, while Quirinius was a significant military leader ... so when it came to the census, which was a taxation mechanism, liable to generate trouble, Caesar Augustus sent Quirinius to conduct the Census thereby effectively elevating Quirinius to the position of a governing authority—even higher than the actual Governor Varus during that time. Quirinius was so successful that he was later appointed Governor. Some historians believe that Quirinius was actual governor of Syria twice - before and after Varus ... which would again mean that he was the governing authority when the Census called in 7 BC was conducted between 7 and 5 BC when, Jesus was born (there is a calendar inaccuracy issue that places Jesus birth in 6 BC).

Just like a lot of your claims, pretty much everything you've said above is wrong.

There is a lot of material to cover here so to begin with I'll outline what the Bible says and what the apologetic response is and then move on to show why this apologetic defense is wrong.

• Matthew's gospel places Jesus' birth at a time when Herod The Great is alive and King of Judea (Matthew 2:1)
• Luke's gospel places Jesus' birth at a time when Quirinius had been appointed governor of Syria and was in the process of conducting a census of the province (Luke 2:2)
• At the time of Herod the Great's kingship the Roman governor of Syria was Quintillius Varus.
• Apologists claim that Quirinius may have had a second, earlier governorship of Syria before Varus.
• JC's claim above is that the census took place between 7 and 5 BCE with Jesus' birth taking place in 6BCE.

Problem 1 - Judea and Syria

The first problem with the apologetic argument is the possibility of a census taking place during Herod's time at all. Under Herod, Judea was a client kingdom of the Roman empire and mostly left to its own devices as long as Herod paid tribute (taxes) to the empire. So Judea under Herod was free from any kind of Roman rule as long as it plays by the rules which meant that it was exempt from censuses. As historian Geza Vermes notes:

"He was a client king of Rome and a personal friend of the Emperor Augustus. That implied that as long as he paid his dues to his overlord, he enjoyed considerable independence."

Herod did play by the rules and he was free to do as he pleased. In fact, had Herod been under any kind of direct Roman administration the slaughter of the newborns in Matthew's gospel would have been unlikely.

It wasn't until Herod died and his son Archelaus took over that the problems began. Herod Archelaus didn't feel like playing by the rules and began squandering the money he should have been paying as tribute. In 6CE things came to breaking point and the Roman authorities deposed Archelaus, annexed Judea, made it part of the province of Syria and appointed a new governor Quirinius. This is outlined by Josephus in Antiquities 18:

"Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Beethus, and high priest; so they, being over-pesuaded by Joazar's words, gave an account of their estates, without any dispute about it."

Furthermore, Josephus dates this event:

"WHEN Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus's money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Antony at Actium"

Caesar's victory was in 31BCE, so 37 years later would be 6CE. Josephus also makes a second earlier reference to this event in Antiquities 17 when he says:

"But in the tenth year of Archelaus's government, both his brethren, and the principal men of Judea and Samaria, not being able to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them, accused him before Caesar, and that especially because they knew he had broken the commands of Caesar, which obliged him to behave himself with moderation among them. ...
So Archelaus's country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus."

Since Herod died in 4BCE, the tenth year of Archelaus' government would be 6CE.

Even early Christian leaders talk about Quirinius and his leadership of Judea. In his First Apology, Justin Martyr speaks about the political environment at the time of Jesus' birth:

"Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judaea."

A census of citizens of Judea could not and would not have taken place prior to 6CE because until then Judea was a client kingdom and exempt from direct taxation or censuses.


Problem 2 - The life of Publius Sulpicius Quirinius

The next problem is that we actually know a great deal about Quirinius' life and we know that Quirinius couldn't have been governor of Syria twice such that he was governor of Syria at a time where Kind Herod was still alive. You can see the full list here but the relevant section is below:


28-25 BCE - Cicero Minor
25-23 BCE - Marcus Terentius Varro
23-13 BCE - Marcus Vispanius Agrippa
13/12 - 10/9 BCE - Marcus Titius
9 - 7/6 BCE - Gaius Sentius Saturnius
7/6 BCE - 4BCE - Publius Quinctilius Varus

So, there's no point at which Quirinius could have been governor before Varus. I've gone back as far as 28 BCE because as noted by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in their commentary on Luke 2:

"Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14 and enrollments in individual provinces of those who are not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census of the Roman world under Caesar Augustus is unknown outside the New Testament."

We also know what Quirinius was actually doing all this time. In 12 BCE he spent a year in Rome as consul, the highest position in the imperial senate and second only to the emperor. Then after his year he went to Turkey to lead a campaign against the Homonadenses from 12 BCE to 1 BCE including a period as legate of Galatia between 5BCE and 3BCE.

So there's no possibility of Quirinius having any involvement in Syria in 6BCE or at any time before his actual governorship in 6CE.


Problem 3 - Luke 3 and Tiberius

Another problem for JC's idea that Jesus was actually born in 6BCE is presented in Chapter 3 of Luke's gospel which has already been mentioned. Luke explicitly dates the beginning of Jesus' ministry as taking place in the 15th year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius. This places it in 29CE. Luke also states that Jesus was 30 years old at this time. So this would place Jesus' birth no earlier than 1BCE. Had Jesus been born when JC says he was then he would have turned thirty in 24CE.

J C wrote: »

Luke is an account of the events immediately surrounding the birth of Jesus such as his birth in the temporary accommodation of a stable, because they were away from their home and the local Inn was booked out. Matthew's account is primarily focussed on events well after the birth of Jesus, such as the visit of the wise men and the slaughter of all chidren under two years by Herod, thereby indicating that Jesus wasn't a newborn, at the time ... and was naturally living in a house, having obviously left the temporary accommodation, that the stable provided on the night that He was born.

OK, let's explore this idea using the chronologies in Luke and Matthew. In Luke's gospel the timeline looks like this:

• Joseph and Mary are living in Nazareth (2:4)
• Because of the census carried out by Quirinius (2:2), they travel to Bethlehem to register (2:4)
• Jesus is born in Bethlehem in temporary accommodation (2:7).
• After 41 days (Leviticus 12:1-4), they travel to Jerusalem about 5 miles away (2:21-22)
• They then left Jerusalem and returned to their home in Nazareth. (2:39)

Now, Matthew's narrative:

• Jesus is born in Bethlehem, with no prior mention of Joseph or Mary's place of residence (2:1)
• The Magi arrive in Jerusalem looking for Jesus (2:1)
• Herod asks his high priests for information and they tell him about Bethlehem (2:5)
• The Magi travel to Bethlehem and visit Jesus in a house (2:11)
• Having seen Jesus they then return home, in a direction other than north (2:12)
• Just after the Magi leave Joseph, Mary and Jesus travel to Egypt (2:13)
• They stay there until Herod is dead (2:15)
• After Herod's death the family return but settle in Nazareth (2:23)

So, according to JC's contention, Jesus is born in 6BCE and Luke's narrative depicts the events immediately after Jesus' birth while Matthew's comes much later at a time when Jesus is close to two years old. However this creates several problems with the text of Matthew 2 and Luke 2.



Firstly, Luke 2:39 shows the family returning to live in Nazareth after just over a month has elapsed since Jesus' birth. If the Magi then visit Jesus when he was close to two years old that would have to be in Nazareth since a) Matthew 2:11 states that they visited a house and b) Luke 2:39 indicates that they were living in Nazareth. However, this creates a non-sequitur with Matthew's narrative. If the Magi visited Nazareth then why doesn't Matthew mention this. It only says they visited Bethlehem. If they're living in Nazareth then why do they flee to Egypt after the Magi leave. Nazareth is 70 miles north of Bethlehem and fleeing to Egypt would mean travelling south straight into harm's way.



Secondly, Matthew 2:2 states:


"and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

It's a little late don't you think. If Jesus is close to two years old it took them a hell of a long time to get there. After all, it's not through word of mouth that the Magi learn of Jesus but a star. So that star hung around for two years over Bethlehem while the family were actually in Nazareth? Really? Why didn't the star move to Nazareth and save the Magi the trip?

Next, if the Magi did in fact visit Jesus in a house in Bethlehem when he was close to two years old that would mean that Joseph and Mary would have had to travel again from Nazareth to Bethlehem and buy/rent a house just so that they could be visited by the Magi. That would be expensive for most people but especially for a construction worker like Joseph.

Finally, Matthew's sole objective in having the flight to Egypt is to portray Jesus as having fulfilled another prophecy as outlined in Matthew 2:15

"where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

But like a lot of Matthew's prophecies this passage is misquoted and misapplied from its original source.

"“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."
Hosea 11:1

Hosea 11:1 refers to Israel and the exodus, not Jesus. It's hard to find a clearer example of deliberate quote-mining.

J C wrote: »

This is a turn of phrase indicating the general contempt that Jesus would be held as indicated by the OT Prophets. Nazareth, as a large Roman garrison town was held in contempt by the Jews and this is reflected in the dismissal in Jn 1:46 "Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked.

Once again there are several problems with this.

Firstly, as I've already pointed out, this contempt as you call it is evidenced nowhere in the Old Testament. Nazareth is not mentioned once.

Secondly, the only reference to contempt towards Nazareth comes from a disciple who is only mentioned twice in the entire New Testament in John 1 and 21. None of the synoptic gospels mention Nathanael nor his contempt for his neighbouring village.

Thirdly, there is this idea of Nazareth as a "large" Roman garrison town. Like the majority of your claims there is no evidence for this and all the evidence we do have speaks against it.
The closest evidence of civilisation to Nazareth is a graveyard and funerary centre at Kfar HaHoresh about two miles from Nazareth. Excavations in and around the Nazareth basin from 1955 onwards show that whatever town might have existed on the site was wiped out by the Assyrians sometime around 720BCE. No other excavations have uncovered artifacts prior to 2nd century CE. Some scholars have suggested that, based on Alexandre's excavations of a bathhouse, Nazareth might have been home to a village with a maximum population of 480. So while Nathanael who was supposedly from Cana would have known about Nazareth, it's unlikely that anyone outside the locality would have known about this one horse town.

The earliest extrabiblical reference to Nazareth isn't until 300CE in a tablet talking about the Bar Kokhba revolt in 132CE. Additionally in 375 Epiphanius writes in Panarion that Nazareth was among the towns where there was no gentile or Samaritan (i.e. non-Jewish) populations.

There's no evidence that Nazareth was occupied at all in Jesus' time and the evidence from the New Testament, when combined with archaeological evidence suggests that at best Nazareth was an out of the way obscure little village. A perfect setting for a rags-to-riches story. If you're going to make up a story about Jesus' background you're hardly going to pick a large town where there would be lots of witnesses who would have heard something about this Jesus. Better to pick some obscure unsung hamlet (as Douglas Adams would say).

uck51js9zml2yt

oldrnwisr wrote: »

There's no point in repeating your baseless assertions unless you're going to back them up with evidence.






There's no evidence that Nazareth was occupied at all in Jesus' time and the evidence from the New Testament, when combined with archaeological evidence suggests that at best Nazareth was an out of the way obscure little village. A perfect setting for a rags-to-riches story. If you're going to make up a story about Jesus' background you're hardly going to pick a large town where there would be lots of witnesses who would have heard something about this Jesus. Better to pick some obscure unsung hamlet (as Douglas Adams would say).

Or maybe putting him in a backwater was the safe thing to do as a result of Herod killing all the children under 2 so as to kill the new "king".

If word of his escape from. The purge had gotten out he would have been in danger!

oldrnwisr

Denver Big Peak wrote: »

Or maybe putting him in a backwater was the safe thing to do as a result of Herod killing all the children under 2 so as to kill the new "king".

If word of his escape from. The purge had gotten out he would have been in danger!

One problem with that idea. Well, more than one if you take the wider context into account but with regard to the specific idea in Matthew's gospel that Joseph moved the family to Nazareth out of Herod's clutches, it runs directly counter to Luke 2:4. In Luke's gosepl Joseph and Mary are already living in Nazareth before Jesus is even born. So in Luke their reason for being in Nazareth has nothing to do with Herod.

pauldla

Denver Big Peak wrote: »

Or maybe putting him in a backwater was the safe thing to do as a result of Herod killing all the children under 2 so as to kill the new "king".

If word of his escape from. The purge had gotten out he would have been in danger!

No other source mentions the massacre of the innocents; indeed, it is only mentioned in Matthew. This may be because i) the killing of all infants in a given area on the order of a local ruler was so common in antiquity as to be unremarkable, or ii) it didn't actually happen.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Forgot to say last night, that in addition to not knowing who wrote the biblical texts, not knowing what their motivations were, not knowing why they wrote it, nor how they wrote it, nor under what conditions they wrote it, nor when, nor where - the NT writers didn't make it clear how they knew Jesus, nor how they knew what they were writing was accurate and St Paul (only some of whose Letters may have been written by him) never met Jesus at all - we also don't know how the text was stored and transmitted once written, nor do we know what edits were made, intentionally or unintentionally to the texts.

... quite a bit of 'not knowing' there, Robin ... I'm not really surprised, that as an avowed Atheist ... you claim to know so little about the Bible.:)

On the other hand, Christians, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, know everything there is to know about Holy Scripture, starting with the fact that it is the inspired Word of God, given to us for our edification, sanctification and eternal happiness.

... but then Paul has said in 1 Corinthians 1:18 New International Version (NIV)
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

... and this is just as true in 2017 as it was in 117 !!

J C

pauldla wrote: »

No other source mentions the massacre of the innocents; indeed, it is only mentioned in Matthew. This may be because i) the killing of all infants in a given area on the order of a local ruler was so common in antiquity as to be unremarkable, or ii) it didn't actually happen.

... or perhaps iii) it was pigs that were flying, instead!!!:D
... an equally far-fetched speculation to your two ones!!!:eek:

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

... or perhaps iii) it was pigs that were flying, instead!!!:D
... an equally far-fetched speculation to your two ones!!!:eek:

Isn't the massacre of the innocents your favourite bible story? It sure is mine! God knows what's going to happen, and sends a warning to the parents of just ONE child, and those parents flee with their kid and pass on the warning to exactly NONE of the other boys' parents!

Utterly depraved.

robindch

J C wrote: »

... quite a bit of 'not knowing' there, Robin ... I'm not really surprised, that as an avowed Atheist ... you claim to know so little about the Bible.:)

On the other hand, Christians, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, know everything there is to know about Holy Scripture, starting with the fact that it is the inspired Word of God, given to us for our edification, sanctification and eternal happiness.

There's a big difference, JC, between thinking you know something and actually knowing something - it's the difference between belief and knowledge, perhaps similar to the difference between "need" and "want" whcih kids have so much trouble with.

You're no more "indwelt by the holy spirit" than you are a bowl of buttered peas. And the knowledge you claim to hold is as fake as 45's orange tan.

J C

robindch wrote: »

There's a big difference, JC, between thinking you know something and actually knowing something - it's the difference between belief and knowledge, perhaps similar to the difference between "need" and "want" whcih kids have so much trouble with.

... its not only children who often have trouble separating their 'needs' and their 'wants' ... many adults also have trouble accepting their 'need' for salvation ... because this might have implications for fulfilling some of their more selfish 'wants'.

robindch wrote: »

You're no more "indwelt by the holy spirit" than you are a bowl of buttered peas. And the knowledge you claim to hold is as fake as 45's orange tan.

You have the right to be wrong about me allright.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

Isn't the massacre of the innocents your favourite bible story? It sure is mine! God knows what's going to happen, and sends a warning to the parents of just ONE child, and those parents flee with their kid and pass on the warning to exactly NONE of the other boys' parents!

Utterly depraved.

The depraved one was Herod ... but you seem to prefer to blame the targetted victim (Jesus) ... instead of the perpretrator (Herod).

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

The depraved one was Herod ... but you seem to prefer to blame the targetted victim (Jesus) ... instead of the perpretrator (Herod).

Don't know how you got that I blamed Jesus out of my post. His parents fecked off without passing on the warning, while god didn't bother warning the other parents at all, but it was all god's plan or some such, so Herod was just doing god's will.

pauldla

J C wrote: »

... or perhaps iii) it was pigs that were flying, instead!!!:D
... an equally far-fetched speculation to your two ones!!!:eek:

There is neither historical nor archaeological evidence for the massacre, so there is no need to bring flying pigs into it (unless you have evidence for winged porcines? It would be no worse than some of the other nonsense presented on this, and other, threads).

But as Pherekydes points out, it seems that, in this story, God was prepared to do good by allowing infants to be slaughtered. Mysterious ways? Or an poorly thought out dramatic interlude by the author(s) of Matthew?

oldrnwisr

pauldla wrote: »

No other source mentions the massacre of the innocents; indeed, it is only mentioned in Matthew. This may be because i) the killing of all infants in a given area on the order of a local ruler was so common in antiquity as to be unremarkable, or ii) it didn't actually happen.

Well, three facts point toward the second option rather than the first.

1. No other biblical source mentions the slaughter.

2. Josephus who is at pains to point out what a bastard Herod was mentions Herod murdering three of his sons, his mother-in-law and his second wife but makes no mention of this event.

3. The first work to mention this event after Matthew isn't until the Protoevangelium of James in 150CE, almost 70 years later.

J C

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well, three facts point toward the second option rather than the first.

1. No other biblical source mentions the slaughter.

2. Josephus who is at pains to point out what a bastard Herod was mentions Herod murdering three of his sons, his mother-in-law and his second wife but makes no mention of this event.

3. The first work to mention this event after Matthew isn't until the Protoevangelium of James in 150CE, almost 70 years later.

There is a comprehensive explanation for why the slaughter of the innocents by Herod isn't recorded by Josephus here:-
http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/truth-or-fiction-did-herod-really-slaughter-baby-boys-in-bethlehem
Infanticide was quite common in the ancient world ... and there was also a high infant mortality rate from natural causes ... so Herod slaughtering, a relativley small number of children under two years of age in the tiny village of Bethlehem, population of about 1,000, wouldn't register as important with non-biblical writers, especially when Herod's other evil acts were quite notorious and outrageous.
Infanticide in the Roman World was used routinely to get rid of unwanted children ... so to the people of the day, it was looked on as something equivalent to procured abortion today ... i.e shocking to people of faith ... but really no big deal to much of society.
Quote:-
"The study, which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Archaeological Science, explains that "until recently, (infanticide) was a practice that was widely tolerated in human societies around the world. Prior to modern methods of contraception, it was one of the few ways of limiting family size that was both safe for the mother and effective."
Based on archaeological finds, the practice appears to have been particularly widespread in the Roman Empire."
https://www.seeker.com/infanticide-common-in-roman-empire-1765237924.html

oldrnwisr

J C wrote: »

There is a comprehensive explanation for why the slaughter of the innocents by Herod isn't recorded by Josephus here:-
http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/truth-or-fiction-did-herod-really-slaughter-baby-boys-in-bethlehem
Infanticide was quite common in the ancient world ... and there was also a high infant mortality rate from natural causes ... so Herod slaughtering, a relativley small number of children under two years of age in the tiny village of Bethlehem, population of about 1,000, wouldn't register as important with non-biblical writers, especially when Herod's other evil acts were quite notorious and outrageous.
Infanticide in the Roman World was used routinely to get rid of unwanted children ... so to the people of the day, it was looked on as something equivalent to procured abortion today ... i.e shocking to people of faith ... but really no big deal to much of society.
Quote:-
"The study, which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Archaeological Science, explains that "until recently, (infanticide) was a practice that was widely tolerated in human societies around the world. Prior to modern methods of contraception, it was one of the few ways of limiting family size that was both safe for the mother and effective."
Based on archaeological finds, the practice appears to have been particularly widespread in the Roman Empire."
https://www.seeker.com/infanticide-common-in-roman-empire-1765237924.html

As usual JC you're wrong.

Firstly, it's a bit dishonest to categorise this as infanticide. Infanticide as people understood the term at the time (and now) was a crude method of family planning where disabled or unwanted children were killed usually through exposure to the elements. Since contraception was unreliable and abortion dangerous, infanticide was the only method available to those people. However, infanticide was something which parents chose to inflict on their children. Having some raging despot send henchmen to your house to murder your child against your will is something different. The idea that such an act would have gone unmentioned is ridiculous. An analogous way to look at it is this. In countries where euthanasia is legal someone undertaking the practice would not be worthy of mention. However, someone being forcibly euthanised against their will would be front page news. It's the same in Matthew. Jewish beliefs of the time had distinct reservations about infanticide and a bunch of Jewish authors would definitely have mentioned it.

Secondly, while Greek and Roman populations would have seen infanticide as normal, the same can't be said for Jewish writers and this completely undermines Maier's argument from silence approach. We can see this in the attitudes of writers of the time to the general topic of infanticide. Contrast for example Seneca's attitude:

"Unnatural progeny we destroy, we drown even children who at birth are weak and abnormal. Yet it is not anger, but reason that separates the harmful from the sound."
De Ira 1, 15, 2
with Jewish writers like Philo of Alexandria:

"Some of them do the deed with their own hands, with monstrous cruelty and barbarity they stifle and throttle the first breath which the infants draw or throw them into a river or into depths of the sea, after attaching some heavy substance to make them sink more quickly under the weight. Others take them to be exposed in some desert place, hoping, they themselves say, that they may be saved, but leaving them in actual truth to suffer the most distressing fate. For all the beasts that feed on human flesh visit the spot and feed unhindered on the infants, a fine banquet."
The Special Laws 3, 114-115
or even Josephus himself:

"The Law forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten or to kill it afterward and if any woman appears to have done so she will be a murderer of her child by killling a living creature and diminishing humankind."
Against Apion 2, 202

Even after Josephus' time this remained a Jewish sentiment as expressed by Pseudo-Phocylides in the 2nd century when warning Hellenistic Jews about assimilating Roman cultural norms:

"Do not let a woman destroy the unborn babe in her belly, nor after its birth throw it before the dogs and the vultures as prey."

Like I said already the Jews had severe reservations about the Roman practice of infanticide (probably in part because it was a Roman practice) so the idea that a writer like Josephus would not mention forcible infanticide perpetrated by someone whose misdeeds he repeatedly recorded is completely flawed. It is a desperate straw-clutching attempt by Christians to hold on to a story fabricated by Matthew as a plot device in order to fulfill a misquoted and misapplied "prophecy" so that Jesus would have to move from Bethlehem to Nazareth.

J C

oldrnwisr wrote: »

As usual JC you're wrong.

As usual, you are 'adding two and two ... and getting six'!!:)
You are correct that infanticide was widespread in Roman times ... and was thus 'normalised' within society in those times. You are also correct that it was abhorred by the Jews.
Because of this, it is likely that Herod, would have had the children murdered 'at arms length' from himself, possibly using mercenaries/secret agents, that couldn't be linked back to him ... and therefore not a crime that could be reliably attributed to him by the historians/chroniclers of the time.
We need to remember the context here ... Herod was installed as king of the Jews, not by the Jewish population, but by the pagan Romans. Herod was actually an Edomite, which meant that in the eyes of the Jews he had no right to be their king, in the first place, because God promised David that his descendants would sit on the throne.
Herod was already on a 'sticky wicket' with the Jews that he governed ... and he was therefore deadly afraid that his puppet throne would be usurped by the rightful King of the Jews, Jesus Christ. After all, that was the reason he decided to try and cut off the threat by having all of the young boys of Jesus' age killed. As well as being a psychopath, he was also cunning and secretive. His duplicity and underhand nature was shown by Mt 2:7-8
"Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”
... so, because Herod believed that the real king of the Jews was alive ... he was therefore engaged in regicide, in his own mind. He therefore would want to keep his role in the act totally secret ... because of the obvious risk of it 'backfiring' on him, if an already enraged Jewish population found out that he had killed their rightful king.
For Christians who knew what happened with the visit of the Magi, Herod’s role in the Bethlehem murders would have been obvious, but for a later Jewish historian, like Josephus, who wouldn’t have known about this, the slaughter in Bethlehem would have seemed like just another senseless act of brutality that was so common in that era.

oldrnwisr

J C wrote: »

As usual, you are 'adding two and two ... and getting six'!!:)
You are correct that infanticide was widespread in Roman times ... and was thus 'normalised' within society in those times. You are also correct that it was abhorred by the Jews.
Because of this, it is likely that Herod, would have had the children murdered 'at arms length' from himself, possibly using mercenaries/secret agents, that couldn't be linked back to him ... and therefore not a crime that could be reliably attributed to him by the historians/chroniclers of the time.
We need to remember the context here ... Herod was installed as king of the Jews, not by the Jewish population, but by the pagan Romans. Herod was actually an Edomite, which meant that in the eyes of the Jews he had no right to be their king, in the first place, because God promised David that his descendants would sit on the throne.
Herod was already on a 'sticky wicket' with the Jews that he governed ... and he was therefore deadly afraid that his puppet throne would be usurped by the rightful King of the Jews, Jesus Christ. After all, that was the reason he decided to try and cut off the threat by having all of the young boys of Jesus' age killed. As well as being a psychopath, he was also cunning and secretive. His duplicity and underhand nature was shown by Mt 2:7-8
"Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”
... so, because Herod believed that the real king of the Jews was alive ... he was therefore engaged in regicide, in his own mind. He therefore would want to keep his role in the act totally secret ... because of the obvious risk of it 'backfiring' on him, if an already enraged Jewish population found out that he had killed their rightful king.
For Christians who knew what happened with the visit of the Magi, Herod’s role in the Bethlehem murders would have been obvious, but for a later Jewish historian, like Josephus, who wouldn’t have known about this, the slaughter in Bethlehem would have seemed like just another senseless act of brutality that was so common in that era.

Apologies for the delay in replying to this JC.

Firstly, let me restate for the record. This. Is. Not. Infanticide. Infanticide was a crude method of family planning among Greco-Roman cultures. It was not practised by Jews. Secondly, even if it were practised by Jews, this still wouldn't be infanticide. Infanticide requires the parents to willingly kill their own child. The story in Matthew is not that. It is the murder of these children by mercenaries employed by King Herod. This would have attracted significant attention contrary to your assertion that nobody would have commented on it. Let's work through the sequence of events. You and your spouse have recently had a newborn. Suddenly, one day a bunch of mercenaries break into your house and murder your newborn. You are horrified and aggrieved. Your first response is to go to the authorities. Then you tell your neighbours. Soon, you find out that other neighbours have had similar experiences. It turns out that 20 (well Paul Maier says about 25 children of this age in a town the size of Bethlehem so that's between 15 and 25 families) families have had children murdered in a relatively short space of time. That's a bid odd isn't it. What are the chances? Who could have the resources to hire mercenaries to go and kill 25 children? Well, only one really, the King. The idea that Herod could have sent mercenaries to kill 25 children from 20 different families in the same space of time and kept his involvement secret is pure fantasy. A fantasy concocted purely to explain why no other author before or within 70 years after Matthew mention this act of brutality.

Secondly, the idea that Matthew is recording an event that somehow nobody else noticed or would have had access to is weak at best. You say Josephus wouldn't have had access to the information. Well, what about Philo of Alexandria or Justus Tiberias or any other writer. Also, your position is undermined by the fact that this penchant for making **** up fits exactly within Matthew's MO. Matthew repeatedly distorts, misquotes, misapplies and fabricates prophecies in order to paint Jesus as the Jewish messiah.

For example, Matthew chooses to have Jesus born in Bethlehem in supposed fulfillment of a prophecy in Micah. However, he either misreads Micah or deliberately distorts it because it doesn't support his claim:

"But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."

Here we can see the problem. The Bethlehem referred to by Micah is a tribe, not a town. It is the tribe of Bethlehem, son of Hur, son of Caleb, through his second wife Ephrathah, hence Bethlehem Ephrathah. One has to assume that Matthew is aware of this since Bethlehem's ancestry is elucidated in 1 Chronicles 2:19 and 1 Chronicles 4:4, the former of which Matthew borrows for his genealogy of Jesus. We also know that this is not a prophecy of Jesus because Micah goes on to say that this ruler will not be the Messiah but a local warlord who will defeat the Assyrians:

"They will shepherd the land of Assyria with the sword, The land of Nimrod at its entrances; And He will deliver us from the Assyrian When he attacks our land And when he tramples our territory."

Then of course, there's the outright fabricated prophecies like Matthew 2:23 about Jesus being a Nazarene which is found nowhere in the scriptures.

Finally, back to Herod and the massacre. Matthew borrows the overwhelming majority of his text from Mark (>80%) who places Jesus' origin in Nazareth. But he wants Jesus to also come from Bethlehem. So he opens his story with the family living in Bethlehem (as opposed to Luke). But then he needs a way to have the family get out of Bethlehem and up to Nazareth. But what? And who? Herod. So Matthew concocts the Massacre of the Innocents and misquotes two more prophecies on the way. In Matthew 2:15 he says:

"He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”

Matthew deliberately truncates a quote from Hosea 11:1 to make it look like a prophecy about Jesus. However, when we look at the quote in it's entirety we see the problem:

"When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son."

This has nothing to do with Jesus or his birth. It is a reference to Israel and the Exodus when God lead the Israelites out of Egypt to the promised land.

Then as if misquoting one prophecy wasn't enough, Matthew does the exact same thing again.

There's Jeremiah 31:15 which Matthew uses to pretend that this massacre was foretold:

"Thus says the Lord, “A voice is heard in Ramah Lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; She refuses to be comforted for her children, Because they are no more.”

However, this use of Jeremiah is doubly wrong. Firstly, it doesn't involve death and secondly it refers to the Babylonian captivity, not the time of Jesus' birth. This is made clear in the very next verse:

"Thus says the Lord, “Restrain your voice from weeping And your eyes from tears; For your work will be rewarded,” declares the Lord, “And they will return from the land of the enemy."


Matthew's clear objective in portraying Jesus as the Messiah conflicts with Mark's backwater setting of Nazareth. He needs to concoct a way of making Jesus' birth prophetic and the Massacre of the Innocents is just a literary invention designed to advance Matthew's idea.

J C

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Apologies for the delay in replying to this JC.

No problem ... it's that time of year ... I was away on holidays myself.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Firstly, let me restate for the record. This. Is. Not. Infanticide. Infanticide was a crude method of family planning among Greco-Roman cultures. It was not practised by Jews. Secondly, even if it were practised by Jews, this still wouldn't be infanticide. Infanticide requires the parents to willingly kill their own child.

Infanticide is the intentional killing of infants ... although it normally refers to the killing of infants by their parents and especially their mothers ... it also encompasses the intentional killing of infants by third parties as well.
The reality is that infanticide was widely practiced in Roman times throughout the Roman Empire and infant mortality from natural causes was also very high ... and therefore reports of dead infants wouldn't cause 'much of a stir' amongst the Roman Authorities of the time.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The story in Matthew is not that. It is the murder of these children by mercenaries employed by King Herod. This would have attracted significant attention contrary to your assertion that nobody would have commented on it. Let's work through the sequence of events. You and your spouse have recently had a newborn. Suddenly, one day a bunch of mercenaries break into your house and murder your newborn. You are horrified and aggrieved. Your first response is to go to the authorities.

... and the ultimate 'authority' you would be reporting the crime to would be Herod himself, as king/governor of the region ... who was therefore in a unique position to suppress any complaints and prevent any meaningful follow-up/investigation or publicity of the slaughter.
Any reports would be suppressed - and if somebody got 'pushy' about investigating the crime ... let's just say they could be shown the error of their ways ... very quickly indeed !!! :eek:

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Then you tell your neighbours.

Who are just as powerless and frightened as yourself ... and scared that the same fate might befall themselves and their children, as happened you, if they open their mouths !!!
We have to remember that these people wouldn't know who did this killing or why they did it ... and therefore would be petrified by fear as a result of it.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Soon, you find out that other neighbours have had similar experiences. It turns out that 20 (well Paul Maier says about 25 children of this age in a town the size of Bethlehem so that's between 15 and 25 families) families have had children murdered in a relatively short space of time. That's a bid odd isn't it. What are the chances? Who could have the resources to hire mercenaries to go and kill 25 children? Well, only one really, the King.

... or potentially any number of other murderous thugs ... from God knows where !!!
... and publicly accusing the King without any evidence of his involvement ... wouldn't be a very wise thing to do !!!

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The idea that Herod could have sent mercenaries to kill 25 children from 20 different families in the same space of time and kept his involvement secret is pure fantasy.

... Why is it fantasy? ...
Herod had publicly said he wanted to adore Jesus Christ ... why would anybody believe that he wanted to kill him? ...
... and even if some 'conspiracy theorists' of the time suggested that he might want to kill him ... they would be risking swift retribution if they went public with their 'theory' !!!

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Secondly, the idea that Matthew is recording an event that somehow nobody else noticed or would have had access to is weak at best.

A limited number of local people noticed it ... but in a time before mass media, the news couldn't go much further, if the authorities didn't want any publicity about it ... and it probably wouldn't even be believed by most people not directly caught up in it anyway.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You say Josephus wouldn't have had access to the information. Well, what about Philo of Alexandria or Justus Tiberias or any other writer.

If the information was suppressed by the authorities and/or some cover story/denial story was spun by them, the few historians of the time wouldn't be bothered to report it.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Also, your position is undermined by the fact that this penchant for making **** up fits exactly within Matthew's MO. Matthew repeatedly distorts, misquotes, misapplies and fabricates prophecies in order to paint Jesus as the Jewish messiah.

For example, Matthew chooses to have Jesus born in Bethlehem in supposed fulfillment of a prophecy in Micah. However, he either misreads Micah or deliberately distorts it because it doesn't support his claim:

"But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."

Here we can see the problem. The Bethlehem referred to by Micah is a tribe, not a town. It is the tribe of Bethlehem, son of Hur, son of Caleb, through his second wife Ephrathah, hence Bethlehem Ephrathah.

The town of Bethlehem is cited as the birth-place of Jesus Christ in both Matthew and Luke.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Then of course, there's the outright fabricated prophecies like Matthew 2:23 about Jesus being a Nazarene which is found nowhere in the scriptures.

Nazareth was pretty much a by-word for the lowest of the low at the time ... and the multiple references in prophecy that Jesus would be despised fits into this narrative of Matthew citing what was said through the prophets (plural), that He would be called a Nazarene.

When Satan refers to Jesus, when he manifests himself, he uses the same little-making narrative of calling Jesus 'the Nazarine'.
Here is a typical statement from a Satanist site referring disparagingly to Jesus Christ as 'The Nazarine'.
Quote:-
"2. The character "Jesus Christ" is fictitious and was stolen from some 18+ Pagan legends of a God hanging from a tree, such as Odin, then being resurrected, and is another description of the alchemical operation of transforming the soul- death and then resurrection.
The Nazarene is and has never been anything more than a tool to remove all true spiritual knowledge and disarm the populace of their spiritual powers."
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/serpentis666/TRADITIONAL.html

The prophets that Matthew is citing are the ones saying that the Messiah would be despised and desparaged ... i.e. a 'Nazarene' (Psalm 22:6, 13; 69:10; Isaiah 49:7; 53:3; Micah 5:1).
Prophecy is often double fulfilled e.g. in this case ... Jesus lived in Nazareth ... and was a Nazarene ... and Jesus was despised and desparaged ... and was/is called a Nazarene, as a term of abuse.