Did he or didn't he?

I think it's impossible to say either way. The only appearance of the event is in the gospel of Matthew, and as you say, Josephus makes no mention of it.

Personally, I think there's room for some gray area here. Instead of killing EVERY male child under 2, maybe the orders were just against those at Bethlehem, or something along those lines. Of course a fairly limited incident such as that could be blown out of proportion over the intervening decades and centuries.

No way would Josephus have failed to mention it if it happened. There's a Slaughter of the Innocents story told around the birth of Krishna. Very, very similar. So many of these legends are cross-cultural.

I wouldn't necessarily leave it out of your story, since readers will be disappointed. Your idea about Antipater sounds promising, or you could ave Herod sinking further into mad delusions and having a few babies of the social hierarchy killed.

Googling -

The Byzantine liturgy says 14,000 Holy Innocents were slaughtered on Herod’s orders, an early Syrian list says these first martyrs for Christ were 64,000 in number. But given the size of Bethlehem at the time, the number of slain children may have been only between six and 20.

The Talmud18 describes how Herod took power: “Herod was a slave of the house of the Hasmoneans. He had set his eyes on a certain young girl [from that family]. One day he heard a Heavenly voice that said: ‘Any slave that revolts now will succeed’. He rose and killed all of his masters but left that girl alive. When she saw that he wanted to marry her, she ascended to the roof and raised her voice saying: ’Whoever comes and says: I am descended from the house of the Hasmoneans is a slave, for no one was left from them except this maiden (herself) and this girl is hurling herself from the roof to the ground’ (then she killed herself)”.

According to Matthew's Gospel, Joseph and Mary had to flee with the baby Jesus to Egypt because King Herod had ordered all infant boys born in Bethlehem to be killed. As already mentioned, the Talmud says that ben Perachiah fled to Egypt with Jeshu to escape being killed by King Jannaeus. In contrast to the Christian story of the 'slaughter of the innocents' under Herod, for which there is no historical evidence whatsoever, the persecution of the Pharisees by Alexander Jannaeus is a historical fact [11]. Jannaeus (supported by the Sadducees) overcame the Pharisees around 88 BCE after six years of fighting. He allegedly crucified 800 of them and had the throats of their wives and children cut in front of them; another 8000 rabbis fled Judea. The 'slaughter of the innocents' may be partly based on this fact (initiates were sometimes called 'innocents' or 'infants'). However, it should be noted that the theme of a divine or semi-divine child who is feared by an evil king is very common in pagan mythology.

Interestingly, a leading secular Jewish historian of that time, Flavius Josephus, who detailed King Herod's many crimes, failed to record his so-called child murders. Even the Talmud - fiercely anti-Herod - does not mention the king's "slaughter of the innocents".

What Josephus does record in his Antiquities Of The Jews is the remarkable parallel story of a scribe in ancient Kemet (Egypt) who - about 1 500 years before the birth of Christ - prophesied the advent of a special manchild who would break the power of the Egyptians. The Pharaoh immediately ordered that every Israelite boychild be put to death.

Nothing conclusive, but possibly an indication there may be something more in Syrian/Byzantine texts. Puma

I would also wonder whether there isn't a connection to the Passover story (first borns).

Every writer has some sort of agenda (even if that agenda is to entertain). I think the question would be--whose agenda do you believe is closer to the factual truth of the matter?

Do I believe that Harold was a SOB who was guilty of some pretty dispicable (by modern sensibilities) stuff? Sure I do. Our sensibilities and his are FAR from being the same, so of course we see his normal world in a very different light. Do I believe he slaughtered all the baby boys? Honestly, no. I grew up Methodist, converted to Lutheran in my teens and never heard that story until I was in my 20's and researching Christianity on my own. Seems to me if it was fact like the other facts surrounding the life of Jesus, it would be more prevasively taught that my experience has been.

I'll stick my neck out here and say that without verifiable back-up of a non-religious source, like Josephus, I'd say the slaughter of the innocents story is propoganda at worse and extrapolation at best to what might have actually happened. But, then, I've gotten cynical in my old age about why things were/are recorded the way they are.

Fascinating!

And bearing in mind the fiddling with history the early church did one might even assume that a small incident (Bethlehem only) or a previous historical incident was 'borrowed' to dramatise the Jesus story.

That comparison is fascinating. You've got a hard row to hoe with the differences between the Talmud and Josephus. And you have to wonder about hidden agendas in each. It will be interesting to see how you resolve the dilemna. Puma

So only in Matthew, you say? Okay then.
Do you have Kingdom Interlinear, bardskye? Do you like 'reading between the lines'?

That's weird Greek! This is the Jehovah's Witness bible. I don't understand how the Greek can be in such perfect order, like reading English. The Greek I learned was Attic and I've translated bits from the NT, but I have never seen Greek in perfect order. Where's the fun in translating that? Translating Greek is like a puzzle. Greek prose is beautiful because the word order can be manipulated to a large extent to play with patterns, rhythm, word sense, etc.

Phaedo, what's the deal on the origins of the JW bible? How late is this Greek and is later Greek less flexible? And there's punctuation! That's just cheating. My family studied with the Jehovahs Witnesses for years and were on actually on the point of converting, but I know nothing about the background of their scripture translations. Now I'm very curious. Oh, strange, strange. I must know!

Bardskye, I have this copy:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000B79YT0/?tag=absolutewritedm-20

Suse,

The Greek Scriptures were written in koine (common) Greek of the 1st century of our Common Era.

In copying the originals by hand, the element of human frailty entered in, and so none of the thousands of copies in existence today in the original language are perfect duplicates. The result is that no two copies are exactly alike. Thus no translation of them would be perfect.

I am merely offering only one variant of such ‘originals’. Bardskye is encouraged to research other original copies (i.e the modern prints of such, unless she could get into the museums’ vaults), study, question, and make her own judgments.

for this one:
the left-hand column is the Greek edited by B.F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort 1881.
the word-for-word (between the lines) English translation of 1969.
the right-hand column is the 1984 revision of NWT of the Holy Scriptures.

Punctuation. I would have to hesitantly agree with you, Suse. For such an immensely important document, the comma suggestions could be dangerous.

On the writing style. I am sorry I forgot the background of the four Gospel writers. All I remember is that they were of quite different social status. One was a merchant, the other was a tax collector, et cetera. Thus their upbringing would and does reflect on the style.

This is the Jehovah's Witness bible.

Click to expand...

And? If you can offer any other alternative for the same or better researched work, I’d be more than grateful. I mean it.
I am a religion-free amateur historian who likes to sniff books and ask questions like “What did he mean by that?”

Suse said:

I don't understand how the Greek can be in such perfect order, like reading English.

Click to expand...

Yes, koine is like that. Much simpler and easier to read.
I hate Attic. *cries*

Anyway, getting back to Herod.

Can anyone offer his/her treatment of the term ανειλεν? That’s what struck me in this yesterday.

Also, here is my personal insignificant barbaric treatment of this passage:

It still does not say the babies were actually killed. He might have ordered it, but did they get to it? They probably stepped out of his chambers, shrugged, spat and muttered “The old man has lost it again.” and went about their business. And even if they did get to it, did they succeed? No information.

Also, this reads more literary than I’d want it to. The out of the blue reference to Jeremiah who prophesied when? five hundred years before the event. Why quote Jeremiah all of a sudden, when he could just say “and they killed them kids, period.”

“then that was fulfilled which was spoken” - seems like the only evidence to hold on to.

I just don’t know, it reads too poetic to me for a simple recital of the events.

“a voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and much wailing; it was Rachel weeping for her children, and she was unwilling to take comfort, because they are no more.”

- me thinks those guys were utter fanatics of prophesies. Is it possible that Matthew had inserted it here just for the sake of witticism?

Over to you.

With all the reports about people (artists, rulers, etc.) going mad because of metal or other poisoning - have you run into anything on the possible cause of Herod's madness? If it was a fairly common happening at that time, that might have had an effect on how much people followed through on his orders. Puma

BardSkye said:

Not long after, on his deathbed, Herod ordered that a goodly portion of the population be herded into the local forum. He wanted them killed as soon as he died, to ensure there would be lots of mourning.

Click to expand...

omg! what an interesting character, worthy of a good book.

Puma said:

have you run into anything on the possible cause of Herod's madness? If it was a fairly common happening at that time, that might have had an effect on how much people followed through on his orders. Puma

Click to expand...

Interesting.

Fascinating. Now I am hooked: - the 300 people - did that number include solely the plotters, the supporters of, or did it include their families, all down to the last relative? Do you see what I am getting at?

mmm, I wasn't much thinking about women though.
I just thought to myself "what if the number of the executed was, say, three-four times less, but he just had to eliminate any successors of those officers, you know? It is a perfectly reasonable move, and has nothing to do with cruelty. well, it doesn't. it's practical thinking, that's all. because a brother or a son will surely go on an avenging rampage.

well, just a thought, an idea, in support of poor old syphilitic Herod .

Phaedo said:

And? If you can offer any other alternative for the same or better researched work, I’d be more than grateful. I mean it.
I am a religion-free amateur historian who likes to sniff books and ask questions like “What did he mean by that?”

Click to expand...

Just pointing out what translation of the Scriptures it is since Bardskye wasn't clear.