Slaughter of the Innocents

[BardSkye]

My WIP, finally started, has my female MC enslaved, manumitted then sentanced to death in absentia by Herod at just the same time as the slaughter of all Jewish male babies under two years old.

Her lover gets her out of immediate danger only to discover the orders for the slaughter have just gone out.

What I'd like to ask any knowledgeable people out there is how the ordinary citizen, both Jew and Roman, would be likely to have reacted to those orders. Riots? Wholesale running for the hills? Find a deep dark cellar and hide? What about any Roman troops posted there? I know Herod had his own secret police who can be assumed to be as vile as any others on record, but the regular army must have included mostly decent soldiers who would regard those orders as dishonourable.

Are there any historical records of that particular event amongst the Jewish or Roman scholars of the day that detail the reaction of the populace as a whole?

[robeiae]

Are there any historical records of that particular event amongst the Jewish or Roman scholars of the day that detail the reaction of the populace as a whole?I've never heard of any historical records that confirm the actual event, let alone speak to how the event was received. Sorry.

Also, note that Bethlehem was a small town. There were probably only a handful of children that met the criteria.

[BardSkye]

True enough. I've read various speculations that suggest there probably wouldn't be more than 15-20 children affected. Even so - especially in a small town - putting a dozen or two children to the blade would be likely to rouse the inhabitants in a big way.

I wondered if perhaps the Jewish historians might have noted anything down as they, like the Chinese, kept what seem to be meticulous records.

[robeiae]

I wondered if perhaps the Jewish historians might have noted anything down as they, like the Chinese, kept what seem to be meticulous records.Think of it this way--there are things that happen in small towns in rural areas that go unreported today. One hundred years ago, there was even more that went unreported. Look at Rosewood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosewood,_Florida). And that was less than a hundred years ago.

The manner in which the slaughter was carried out could have been real cloak and dagger stuff. Say there were just a handful: even two dozen maybe be overstating the number, particularly if you accept the analysis offered by some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Massacre_of_the_Innocents):When the Magi, warned in dreams of the king's true intentions, returned home by a different route to avoid being forced to betray the child, Herod ordered the slaughter of all male children who were two years old and under. That criterion probably actually refers to people under just 12 months old, as the likely Hebrew origin of the phrase would refer to people who haven't started their second year.Perhaps entire families were "disappeared." Perhaps the children were just taken on some falsified legal claim. Perhaps it was done in the dead of night. How much of the population, in just Bethlehem alone, actually would have known what transpired?

I'm just speculating, of course.

[BardSkye]

A valid point. That makes it somewhat easier to mess about with, doesn't it?

So far anything I've found seems to be based on that one biblical reference. Without any corroborating evidence I guess I'll be free to come up with my own take on it, make it cloak and dagger or riots in the street, whichever fits the story the best.

Thanks for the opinions. I'll keep mulling on it. :D

[Cav Guy]

I would hazard a guess that riots in the streets were not likely, simply because the Romans tended to frown on that sort of thing among their subjects and would take a very heavy hand in putting such unrest down. Cloak and dagger or simply "spot arrests" would have been more likely.

Also, since the event isn't really historically documented, I'd say you've got free rein to shape it to match the needs of your story. Perhaps unrest in more prosperous areas of town combined with resignation in the more blighted areas.

[Carmy]

From what I've read, kings of old had the power to do almost anything they wanted without fear of reprisal. (You need go no further back than the Plantagenets to prove that's true.) The edict to kill all male children gives us an idea of who Herod was. I think the average citizen would be too afraid to make a public outcry.

[BardSkye]

All the research on Herod I've come across leads me to believe I probably couldn't paint him as worse than he actually was even taking into account that much of it was written by his enemies. In fact, I think I would rather have been his enemy than his friend, or family. Safer. That much is documented. The Emperor is known to have said it was safer to be Herod's pig than his son. Several sources mention that they're not sure the story is true, but that it would be quite in keeping with Herod's personality and rule.

Hmm... maybe I can use the secret police to give the story an extra zing. I don't think secret police have changed much over the centuries, no matter where they operate. Back to Google to figure out the approximate size of the town.

Thanks, everyone!

[Higgins]

True enough. I've read various speculations that suggest there probably wouldn't be more than 15-20 children affected. Even so - especially in a small town - putting a dozen or two children to the blade would be likely to rouse the inhabitants in a big way.

I wondered if perhaps the Jewish historians might have noted anything down as they, like the Chinese, kept what seem to be meticulous records.

Unlike ancient China, Judea was pretty much destroyed by the Romans and that probably wiped out whatever meticulous Judean records there may have been. There is really only one historical source for the Hasmoneans and Herodians: Josephus. He certainly records plenty of atrocities and people in Judea seem to have been far from subjugated since they revolted 3 or 4 times in the first two or three centuries BC/AD and in general there was a lot of fractious unrest. I think Josephus gives a picture of what he thought of all the mayhem, so that's one near-contemporary take on things around 4 AD/BC.

[BardSkye]

Yes, I'm relying on Josephus for about 80% of my research as he seems to be the only non-biblical source I can find. Christian researchers are many and varied but their interpretations are not what I need as they focus on Jesus. Jesus' birth, in my WIP, might rate a page at best. It's a part of the story but not a big one.

Herod had a good deal of unrest and a few outright revolts to deal with (savagely). A couple are documented, such as a student revolt, and the religious leaders of the time were known to be very unhappy with the whole situation. I'm dealing with the lower classes, the ones without any real power to change things, and the odd foreigner.

[Higgins]

Yes, I'm relying on Josephus for about 80% of my research as he seems to be the only non-biblical source I can find. Christian researchers are many and varied but their interpretations are not what I need as they focus on Jesus. Jesus' birth, in my WIP, might rate a page at best. It's a part of the story but not a big one.

Herod had a good deal of unrest and a few outright revolts to deal with (savagely). A couple are documented, such as a student revolt, and the religious leaders of the time were known to be very unhappy with the whole situation. I'm dealing with the lower classes, the ones without any real power to change things, and the odd foreigner.

For an idea of how your average guy felt in the upheavals of antiquity, you could look at Egypt (which has lots of every-day texts preserved from this period) or into literature based on discovering everyday life via the Talmud or the documents of the Cairo Genizah (see http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/Taylor-Schechter/ for example). There are (for most of the Mediterranean) also graffiti (for example Social War graffiti at Pompeii) and funereal inscriptions.

[BardSkye]

Now there's a link I can get happily lost in for weeks. I love university research libraries. :D I'll check out Egyptian contemporary writings as well. Now that you've mentioned it I'm smacking myself up'side the head saying "Why didn't I think of that?"

Many thanks once again.

[Higgins]

Now there's a link I can get happily lost in for weeks. I love university research libraries. :D I'll check out Egyptian contemporary writings as well. Now that you've mentioned it I'm smacking myself up'side the head saying "Why didn't I think of that?"

Many thanks once again.

Here's some letters from sailors in around 150 AD:

http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/paplet1.htm

Here's an intro to some papyrus resources:

http://www.athenapub.com/egypap1.htm

problems with papyrus on the Web:

http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/DEPT/RA/ABZU/ARCETALK.HTML

A big heap of papyrus online:


http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/POxy/ (http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/POxy/)

[pdr]

Couple of links there new to me. I appreciate your sharing them.

We need to ask Jen if she can start a new heading in Resources for Greek/Roman Papyrus resources!

[BardSkye]

I second the thanks for all the links. Guess I'd better get back to actually writing.

[BruceJ]

Yes, I'm relying on Josephus for about 80% of my research as he seems to be the only non-biblical source I can find. Christian researchers are many and varied but their interpretations are not what I need as they focus on Jesus. Jesus' birth, in my WIP, might rate a page at best. It's a part of the story but not a big one.

Herod had a good deal of unrest and a few outright revolts to deal with (savagely). A couple are documented, such as a student revolt, and the religious leaders of the time were known to be very unhappy with the whole situation. I'm dealing with the lower classes, the ones without any real power to change things, and the odd foreigner.

Bard,

I've read Josephus, too, and he is a good source, although not 100% reliable. There are some incongruities in his writings, too, as he wrote from a specific perspective. I'd still go with him, though, for lack of a better contemporary.

There are some good resources that are through Christian sources that deal with the times of Jesus from an academic viewpoint rather than a religious one. In fact, some of them I got through the Jewish Book Club. Alfred Edersheim's Sketches of Jewish Social Life and Stephen Wylens's The Jews in the Time of Jesus are pretty good resources on the social setting during the first century AD.

For what it's worth...

[BrianTubbs]

Several here have made the assertion that there are no historical records corroborating the account of Herod having the children of Bethlehem slaughtered. I think this is unfair.

After all, how did we hear about the incident?

Even if you reject the Bible on religious grounds, you still have to accept the books of the Bible as ancient documents. Thus, they qualify as historical records, even if one questions their reliability or accuracy on certain points. Thus, there IS a historical record (namely the Gospel of Matthew) that reports Herod ordering the slaughter of babies in Bethlehem.

Is the Gospel of Matthew accurate? Well, a Christian will answer in the affirmative based on his/her faith and belief in the Bible as the Word of God.

A historian (even a non-Christian one) can still answer in the affirmative (albeit a cautious one), since such an order is entirely consistent with what we know about Herod. He was precisely the kind of man that would order such a thing.

[BardSkye]

A good point, Brian.

I'm neither discounting nor disagreeing with the Biblical records; I have no quarrel with anyone's faith. I just find it astonishing that something we, in the modern world, would regard as an atrocity not being mentioned in any of the other records of the time. Bear in mind that I am not a historian at all. My interest is fairly recent

As to why I am looking for non-biblical sources: None of the characters are Christian. Being brought up Protestant myself means that I do not have the same spiritual background as, say, the main character, who is Essene. I'd like to make her true to what her beliefs would have been at the time.

ETA: Thanks, Bruce J, I'll see if I can find copies of those books. They sound very interesting.

[robeiae]

Several here have made the assertion that there are no historical records corroborating the account of Herod having the children of Bethlehem slaughtered. I think this is unfair.

After all, how did we hear about the incident?

Even if you reject the Bible on religious grounds, you still have to accept the books of the Bible as ancient documents. Thus, they qualify as historical records, even if one questions their reliability or accuracy on certain points. Thus, there IS a historical record (namely the Gospel of Matthew) that reports Herod ordering the slaughter of babies in Bethlehem. Of course, the Bible can be regarded as an historical document. The point, however, is that there are no other records that confirm this event. I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone here was saying the Bible was therefore inaccurate or wrong. I know I wasn't.

I just find it astonishing that something we, in the modern world, would regard as an atrocity not being mentioned in any of the other records of the time.It just may not have been that big of a deal. Also, it's not like every text from the period has survived. Almost nothing has survived, actually. So it's very likely that the incident, if it occured, was recorded elsewhere. We just don't have those records.

[BrianTubbs]

When you think about it, who else would have recorded this?

I've actually heard one person say (not here) that Herod's chroniclers were very meticulous and would have therefore recorded this. Really? Do you think Herod would want his killing of innocent children to be part of his legacy?

Likewise, the Romans certainly weren't going to touch this, even if they were aware of it. They had a vested interest in keeping order in Jewish Palestine. The slaughter of innocent children has a tendency to destabilize things.

So, OF COURSE, there were no official, government records of this atrocity.

Who else is going to record it? The only people I can think of who would want to put this incident in a written record would be the victims or followers of Jesus.

We have to remember that there was A LOT OF illiteracy in this time period and in this region. It's unlikely that any of the victims or townspeople would record this affair in writing. There was probably only oral tradition.

And, as several here have already said, Bethlehem was not that big. So, there probably weren't that many people affected, making it easier for a government (in this case, Herodian) cover-up.

The Gospel of Matthew was written sometime in the latter half of the 1st century A.D., well after Herod "the Great" had died. The Gospel writer (and I do believe it was Matthew - though liberal textual critics disagree) probably based the story on oral accounts from surviving Bethlehem citizens. Matthew, being a tax collector, would NOT have been illiterate, and was thus capable of putting this into writing. Moreover, as a tax collector, Matthew probably was a very good researcher. He understood the population of the region better than the average person.

Finally, why would Matthew make this up? It's not a necessary addition to the story. I can see why some people would argue that the virgin birth is made up (I'm not one of those people, but I can see why they'd say that). Having a divine type birth would certainly bolster Jesus' claim to be deity. However, Herod's slaugher of the innocents is not necessary here. Jesus can still be a divinely-conceived, virgin-born child -- and go on to birth the Christian church, die, and be resurrected. All of that can still happen apart from any slaughter of babies in Bethlehem. It's just not a necessary addition. I think Matthew put it in his Gospel because it was true. It really happened.

[robeiae]

I think Matthew put it in his Gospel because it was true. It really happened.I agree.

[Higgins]

Finally, why would Matthew make this up? It's not a necessary addition to the story. I can see why some people would argue that the virgin birth is made up (I'm not one of those people, but I can see why they'd say that). Having a divine type birth would certainly bolster Jesus' claim to be deity. However, Herod's slaugher of the innocents is not necessary here. Jesus can still be a divinely-conceived, virgin-born child -- and go on to birth the Christian church, die, and be resurrected. All of that can still happen apart from any slaughter of babies in Bethlehem. It's just not a necessary addition. I think Matthew put it in his Gospel because it was true. It really happened.

The redactor of "Matthew" (who never says he is Matthew), managed to do a lot with the slaughter-story. He uses it to connect up three earlier references ("out of egypt...the lamentation in Jeremiah and a tidbit about "Nazorean"...presumably from the Septuagint (?)) and to echo the birth of Moses (complete with an Egyptian reference) and to bring in some prophetic dreams and to get the Magi on and off the stage without their discrediting themselves.
The connection with the Magi seems the strangest part of the tale. They travel straight to Jerusalem out of the East and are summoned to Herod there. Of course it is pretty odd that Herod would be there around 4BC- 4AD...(see this for example http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09527a.htm ) and in fact, if Herod died in 4 BC as he seems to have and if he worked out the time (v16 in Matthew) correctly then Christ was born in 6 BC, if not earlier...But then the Magi would not have found Herod in Jerusalem until 5 BC. No wonder people were upset....also of course, given the apparent chronological window of 2 years, it is very odd that Herod would confine his infanticidal missions to one town since in 2 years a lot of babies might have been moved (as in fact the target baby had moved...all the way to Egypt and back).
All-in-all the infanticide story seems to be a pretext for bringing in a lot of other material. Its own internal logic doesn't seem to hold up very well. Why, for example, should Herod worry about some local baby when he is busy murdering his own family as needed to stay in power? (And this murderous propensity of Herod's may be the one real fact behind the infanticide part of the story). Why can't Herod send agents to follow the Magi?

[BrianTubbs]

Replying to Sokal...

First, I don't buy the scenarios of redaction and all that. I believe Matthew, the tax collector and follower of Jesus, wrote the Gospel of Matthew. That is widely affirmed by the early church - an affirmation that has not been satisfactorily overcome by modern textual criticism.

Second, I'm not disputing that Matthew held up the slaughter story for some important symbolic significance. What I'm saying is that it wasn't necessary for him to do so. Take out the slaughter story and you still have a compelling portrait of Jesus as the Son of God. Thus....as significant as the slaughter story was...it was unnecessary from a theological standpoint and too risky to "make up." (There would've been several surviving eyewitnesses from Bethlehem who could have debunked the story, if it were not true. That would have torpedoed the Gospel's credibility from the get-go).

Third, Herod was insane. You're looking for strategic calculation and logical coherence where there was little. We're talking about a man who, toward the end of his life, was so given over to paranoia and insanity that he ordered widespread slaughter to take place upon his death, so there would be mourning. (This was not carried out). According to Josephus, Herod burned a priest and several scholars alive in a rage over some kind of incident related to a fast day. That was just a few months before his death.

The man was crazy. Can you NOT see him ordering the slaughter of babies under 2 years of age in a remote Jewish village?

IMHO, the only reason why anyone would seriously question this account is because of a bias against taking the Bible at face value.

[BardSkye]

Brian, I'm not questioning the account. I think it was something that did happen for all the reasons you put forward.

The challenge for most people in writing historical fiction seems to be in making sure your facts are accurate while weaving the fictional story around them. So before I use the incident I want to check any and all sources I can find to make sure I'm not having my characters flying in the face of documented facts.

Both Matthew and Josephus count as sources but in both cases there's not much detail. I'm sure my fertile little mind can supply detail, I just want to make sure it's correct.

[Higgins]

Replying to Sokal...

First, I don't buy the scenarios of redaction and all that. I believe Matthew, the tax collector and follower of Jesus, wrote the Gospel of Matthew. That is widely affirmed by the early church - an affirmation that has not been satisfactorily overcome by modern textual criticism.

Second, I'm not disputing that Matthew held up the slaughter story for some important symbolic significance. What I'm saying is that it wasn't necessary for him to do so. Take out the slaughter story and you still have a compelling portrait of Jesus as the Son of God. Thus....as significant as the slaughter story was...it was unnecessary from a theological standpoint and too risky to "make up." (There would've been several surviving eyewitnesses from Bethlehem who could have debunked the story, if it were not true. That would have torpedoed the Gospel's credibility from the get-go).

Third, Herod was insane. You're looking for strategic calculation and logical coherence where there was little. We're talking about a man who, toward the end of his life, was so given over to paranoia and insanity that he ordered widespread slaughter to take place upon his death, so there would be mourning. (This was not carried out). According to Josephus, Herod burned a priest and several scholars alive in a rage over some kind of incident related to a fast day. That was just a few months before his death.

The man was crazy. Can you NOT see him ordering the slaughter of babies under 2 years of age in a remote Jewish village?

IMHO, the only reason why anyone would seriously question this account is because of a bias against taking the Bible at face value.

I seriously question all accounts and Matthew gives a very odd account in weaving together prophetic texts, the Magi and the Slaughter. I'm not saying the readactor is wrong or a bad person or anything. I'm just saying the account has to be taken as an account like any other if you are using it as an historical source.

So, if a person is interested in reconstructing the past, one thing he has to do is look at how the past was reconstructed in the past. The redaction received under the title of "Matthew" is a reconstruction of the past -- one that was written in the past, but still a reconstruction like any other.

One question in looking at Matthew's account is what he is trying to do in comparison to say Luke's (later) account. Significantly Luke, coming along a bit later and writing for a different audience, works harder to get his chronology into a better shape and entirely omits any reference to any slaughter. Instead he concentrates on the close relation of Jesus Christ to the Judean oligarchy in what was supposedly the exact same early first Century. John the Baptist's father, for example, is a priest in the Temple, a very different way of relating to the Judaen oligarchy than simply via Magi who deceive Herod and a Herod who orders executions.
Or to put it another way, Matthew features a Christ modeled on Moses with Herod as a Pharoh and a trip to Egypt to boot while Luke features God working in far more mysterious ways to bring one branch of Pharisees to a new, all-encompassing view of salvation.
Or to put it another way, the birth of Christ for Luke and Matthew (but not for other accounts) has some problematic aspects and they resolve them in very different ways: Matthew via echoes of Exodus and prophetic texts with stock figures such as the "insane Herod" and folkloric motifs such as "deceptive" Magi, while Luke goes for resolution via some much stranger, more metaphysical mechanisms.
Naturally, you can take your pick of what you want to have as your reconstructed history -- the earlier redactors did and you can do the same. I myself find it more interesting to put the redactors back in the picture and ask about them and their motives. We certainly have more evidence of that than we do of the actual nature of the machinations of the Magi and the slaughter in Bethlehem.

[BrianTubbs]

Just to clarify. You keep mentioning redactors. It is your position then that the Gospel of Matthew, as originally written, is not what's in the Bible today? That subsequent authors/editors - or "redactors" - got a hold of it and changed it?

Obviously, I'm aware that the work of translation has altered the original text. English readers aren't reading the same nuances, emphases ,and literary style employed by the original Greek author (or Aramaic - if you believe Papias).

[Higgins]

Just to clarify. You keep mentioning redactors. It is your position then that the Gospel of Matthew, as originally written, is not what's in the Bible today? That subsequent authors/editors - or "redactors" - got a hold of it and changed it?

Obviously, I'm aware that the work of translation has altered the original text. English readers aren't reading the same nuances, emphases ,and literary style employed by the original Greek author (or Aramaic - if you believe Papias).

I'm saying "redactor" because I don't think that the text of Matthew as it came together in say 80 AD (and what we have is more or less what was redacted in 80 AD) was just "made up"...I think that whoever put Matthew together was working with a lot of material and he assembled it to make a lot of points. The point in using "redactor" is that I'm implying that the person assembling the text in 80 AD does at that point actually put his text into that particular final form. I'm not particularly worried about any subsequent additions or minor textual problems. Or to put it another way:
what was redacted in 80 AD is more or less the Matthew we have now, which is why we call it Matthew and why I say its a redaction rather than the "raw" text of some other single source.
Since the question of what Papias was referring to is completely open, we could suppose that Matthew as we have it is quite close to some "oracular" set of texts that came to be related to Jesus Christ....which still makes it hard to see how the Slaughter fits in except as a way of indicating echoes from Exodus.
So, to put it another way, I'm sure there is nothing substantially "wrong" with the text of Matthew and its translations, I'm just interested in indicating that if you use Matthew as an historical source, it is worth considering what the redactor was trying to do in 80 AD and how that compares with what Luke was trying to do a bit later.

[BrianTubbs]

The consensus of NT scholarship is, of course, that there was a 'Q' source of some kind that Mark, Matthew, and Luke used to put their Gospels together. In my opinion, and it's based on what Papias says about Matthew writing his Gospel first in Aramaic, I think Matthew probably took notes on Jesus' ministry while he was following Jesus. It makes perfect sense for him to have done that.

This was probably "Q" and it was written most likely in Aramaic. Mark probably took Matthew's "Q" and then put together his Gospel, which was most likely the first Gospel to be published and circulated to the Christian community. Matthew then probably used his own writings and Mark and wrote the Greek version of the Gospel of Matthew - what we have essentially today.

I'm filling in the gaps with some speculation, but it effectively merges modern NT scholarship's opinions with what the early church fathers said. So, I doubt I'm that far off the mark. Of course, this isn't some unique theory of mine. Others have postulated it, and I think it makes sense.

If I'm correct, then Matthew is both the original writer AND the redactor of the Gospel of Matthew.

[Higgins]

The consensus of NT scholarship is, of course, that there was a 'Q' source of some kind that Mark, Matthew, and Luke used to put their Gospels together. In my opinion, and it's based on what Papias says about Matthew writing his Gospel first in Aramaic, I think Matthew probably took notes on Jesus' ministry while he was following Jesus. It makes perfect sense for him to have done that.

This was probably "Q" and it was written most likely in Aramaic. Mark probably took Matthew's "Q" and then put together his Gospel, which was most likely the first Gospel to be published and circulated to the Christian community. Matthew then probably used his own writings and Mark and wrote the Greek version of the Gospel of Matthew - what we have essentially today.

I'm filling in the gaps with some speculation, but it effectively merges modern NT scholarship's opinions with what the early church fathers said. So, I doubt I'm that far off the mark. Of course, this isn't some unique theory of mine. Others have postulated it, and I think it makes sense.

If I'm correct, then Matthew is both the original writer AND the redactor of the Gospel of Matthew.

This seems like a reasonable conclusion and one that was reached in the Early Church it seems. I have my doubts, partly because I like complicated stories of all sorts and partly because I find chronology can be helpful in many cases. Dates for the execution of Jesus Christ cluster around the early 30s AD. The Matthew we have seems to have come together around 50 years later. It's unlikely that an Apostle lived for so long without much other indication (unlike say Peter and James). This suggests to me that (and this is of course, utterly speculative), Matthew may have made some early collection of texts, not necessarily the same as Q and that these included some relatively esoteric pre-existing items such as the Magi and the Star/Messiah Prophecy and that these were joined with other sources after the Destruction of Jerusalem. Indeed, by the time Matthew was assembled, the Aramaic world of the pre-destruction Prophecies may not have been very well understood and they were tacked on perfunctorily in the Greek text at the beginning and the Slaughter was stuck in there as well.
This would explain why Mark is probably the earliest Gospel, but Matthew is traditionally considered the first: Matthew incorporates the Apostle Matthew's very early Aramaic collection of Prophecies or "oracles" -- material so early and from so different a context that by 80 AD it was not really understood very well.

[BrianTubbs]

I hate to use labels, but there's no way around it here. It is the consensus of most liberal NT scholars that Matthew (in its Greek form) was written after the destruction of Jerusalem -- probably around AD 80. Conservative scholars disagree, and tend to date Matthew before the destruction of Jerusalem. Some date it as early as the 40s (though I doubt it was this early).

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" may not be the best here, but I find they speak to the presuppositions and biases (on both sides) that go into dating the Gospel's authorship. For example, liberal scholars believe that a "high Christology" (Jesus seen as God) represented an evolution in Christian thought and theology. Thus, they say the Gospels had to be written late enough for this high Christology to have developed. Well, I find this to be less than persuasive. What if the original followers of Jesus actually did believe Jesus was God? There doesn't have to be an evolution of theology. A high Christology may have been apparent from the get-go.

So, I don't buy the late dating of Matthew. I think somewhere in the 60s (maybe even as early as the 50s) is more accurate. But I do concede that Mark probably wrote the first full Gospel. This probably motivated Matthew to dust off his notes and get busy writing his own formal Gospel.

[BrianTubbs]

What I'd like to ask any knowledgeable people out there is how the ordinary citizen, both Jew and Roman, would be likely to have reacted to those orders. Riots? Wholesale running for the hills? Find a deep dark cellar and hide? What about any Roman troops posted there? I know Herod had his own secret police who can be assumed to be as vile as any others on record, but the regular army must have included mostly decent soldiers who would regard those orders as dishonourable.



The Gospel of Matthew says that Herod gave orders for the killing of the children, but it doesn't explain how those orders were issued or to whom.

It's unlikely that the Romans were involved. I don't see the Roman governor authorizing this kind of thing. He had to answer to Caesar (at the time, Augustus) for keeping order and stability in Jewish Palestine. Highly unlikely the Roman governor (not Pilate at this point) would send troops into Bethlehem to slaughter babies.

So, Herod probably had his own people do the deed. Of course, Herod probably didn't shout this order from the rooftop. I doubt he issued a "Hear ye...hear ye" proclamation throughout all of Judea telling everyone what he was about to do.

Chances are that the people of Bethlehem were taken by surprise, and had no time to hide their children - or themselves. I suspect that Herod's men probably made a quick raid on the town, did their business, and left just as quickly.

In fact, and we can only speculate here, who says that Herod's men weren't disguised? When the patriots dumped tea into Boston Harbor, they disguised themselves. Well, killling babies is a whole lot worse and more inflammatory than throwing out some tea. I am not convinced that Herod would send his army, banners flying, into Bethlehem to kill the kids. I think it's more likely he staged it as a bandit raid of some kind. Gives him plausible deniability.

[Higgins]

I hate to use labels, but there's no way around it here. It is the consensus of most liberal NT scholars that Matthew (in its Greek form) was written after the destruction of Jerusalem -- probably around AD 80. Conservative scholars disagree, and tend to date Matthew before the destruction of Jerusalem. Some date it as early as the 40s (though I doubt it was this early).

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" may not be the best here, but I find they speak to the presuppositions and biases (on both sides) that go into dating the Gospel's authorship. For example, liberal scholars believe that a "high Christology" (Jesus seen as God) represented an evolution in Christian thought and theology. Thus, they say the Gospels had to be written late enough for this high Christology to have developed. Well, I find this to be less than persuasive. What if the original followers of Jesus actually did believe Jesus was God? There doesn't have to be an evolution of theology. A high Christology may have been apparent from the get-go.

So, I don't buy the late dating of Matthew. I think somewhere in the 60s (maybe even as early as the 50s) is more accurate. But I do concede that Mark probably wrote the first full Gospel. This probably motivated Matthew to dust off his notes and get busy writing his own formal Gospel.

If we assume the redactions are intact (ie that we have Mark as written and Matthew as written), then we can see that Mark was written some time after the Destruction of Jerusalem, ie after 70 AD, and indeed so far after that that the customs of Pharisees have to be explained. So make that 75 AD at the earliest and Matthew is after that so make that 80 AD at the earliest. This is consistant with the Gospel emphasis on John the Baptist, who does not appear at all in the Pauline letters.
Or to put it another way: we can distinguish at least 4 periods of textual accumulation:

1) the very earliest (pre-Christian Prophecies/ Apocalytic literature such as Enoch)
2) Apostolic (eg the real Matthew's oracular collection)
3) Paul (letters without John the Baptist)
4) the Post-destruction Gospels and Acts: big emphasis on John the Baptist (implying the need for a chronological peg and a way of bringing in ex-Pharisees who, like the Christians, never joined the Zealots, but now had no Temple).
4) is a fairly long period say 75 - 95 AD (or later for John) and well within the living memory of people who could have talked to somebody like Papias before 130 AD.
Period 4 is obviously a very different world as is clear from the placement of John the Baptist in the foreground, rather suddenly.

[BardSkye]

:popcorn: This discussion is turning out to be even more interesting than the original question.

Carry on.

[frimble3]

Interesting as this discussion is turning out to be, the original question was 'how would people have responded?'. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of how the people of Bethlehem responded, so if Bardskye wants to know how people of the time/culture would have responded to that kind of atrocity, he might try records of similar events (people being people and kings being kings, I'm betting there have been similar events - even King Arthur was accused of murdereing babies, to get rid of Mordred). I think the idea of soldiers in disguise is a good one, if nothing else people might well be relieved - a mass of armed bandits attacks the town and miraculously there are only a few fatalities - the records don't say that it was only infants that died. Kill the babies and any adults you can't overpower. You could send the same troops in a few days to hunt the 'bandits' and be greeted as heroes. (wouldn't that induce guilt). Or, send in undercover secret policemen. Smother the babies, in a time of poor communication and high infant mortality, people might only raise questions in hindsight. Especially if it took a few days to do the deed. This would incorporate the event and the lack of long term historical record.

[BardSkye]

Yep, it looks like I'll have a pretty free hand with it. I'll have to get a little further along and see what twists or plot moves would benefit from a little infanticide.

Work keeps interrupting me just when I'm getting started. Such a pity.

[BrianTubbs]

Yeah, my hunch is that the people in Bethlehem did not immediately know it was Herod. However, I don't think the scenario of smothering or otherwise killing the babies over time is going to work for you. Almost certainly, it was a sudden, violent raid of some kind. Probably at night, to catch the people unawares.

We don't have an official record of the town's reaction, other than what Matthew has to say about it. Even so, I think you can surmise that their reaction was one of panic, shock, grief, and rage. People back then weren't all that different from people today.

[BrianTubbs]

According to polls that I've seen (and I can try to provide some links if you want - I'm just too lazy right now to search them out), the majority of Americans still believe in the Christmas story as portrayed in Matthew and Luke. I would keep this in mind, BardSkye, when doing your story. You always want to respect your audience. When considering the slaughter of the innocents, people are going to be most famliar with the Matthew account. If you deviate from that too much in your novel, you might lose a connection with your audience. Not telling you how to write. Just something you should keep in mind.

[BardSkye]

I'll probably be keeping things fairly close to the account in Matthew (as that's my religious background as well), but the story centers around the Magi as opposed to Jesus. The actual "adoration" scene won't take up a lot of paragraphs. I'm more interested in getting them to the stable and winkling them out from under Herod's nose afterwards.

Quite a stimulating thread, thank you.

[robeiae]

Have you considered having them parachute into the stable?

:D

[BardSkye]

:e2tongue:

Oh! Oh! And I can have Herod's men watching and have one turn to the other and say, "It's quiet." Then the other one can, like, say, "Yeah, too quiet!"

And the good guys can parachute in from the backs of these really, really big eagles and, like, save the day. And then the Magi can say something like "Here's looking at you, kid!" :D

I just e-mailed that idea to a really big publisher. They say it's the most innovative use of dialogue they've ever seen and because they're sure it will be a hit they'll only charge me half price! (I know they're a big publisher because I see their ads all the time.)

I'm practically rich! :hooray:

[BrianTubbs]

No, no, let's make it a Star Trek Christmas story. It's the Klingons that raid Bethlehem, and the wise men are from the planet Vulcan. The Enterprise of course comes into the story searching for dilithium crystals - and ends up being caught up in the events. Which is okay, since they have experience dealing with Romans. Kirk can hit on the women of Jerusalem as he tries to find his way to the source of dilithium crystals - which, of course, has to Bethlehem. Maybe he fights Herod and gets his shirt torn in the process. I can't do anymore for you here, but that should get you started.

[pdr]

How historically inaccurate!
Really, that's of no help at all to poor Bardsky.

Now what you actually need, bardsky, is a weird blue box to appear out of the sky, disgorge a white haired, irascible old gent who will scold the Magi safely on their way and drop the family well on the road to Egypt with a whisk of his hand and leave the Daleks behind to deal with Herod's men.

[BardSkye]

Eccleston killed off the last Dalek, unfortunately. And I'm pretty sure Tut's from a different time.:tongue

But, hey! We can make one of the Magi a dashing archaeologist with a cool hat and a bullwhip digging for Tut in Herod's palace. We'll make Herod this really huge fat guy with slave girls lolling around on the dias in front of him and his chief of police can be a sinister black-clad chap with breathing problems. When the Magi ask about the new king, Herod will tell them "Frankly, boys, I don't give a damn."

[robeiae]

:e2smack:

Ye gods, what have I wrought?

[BardSkye]

The beginning of the all-time worst historical novel, comprising every scene we can steal from big-name movies?

I'm sure I can send it to Publish America and get it accepted.

:e2point:

[BruceJ]

The beginning of the all-time worst historical novel, comprising every scene we can steal from big-name movies?

I'm sure I can send it to Publish America and get it accepted.

:e2point:
Maybe you can have Princess Leia Magdallen as the only surviving descendant of...oh, wait. That's been done.

[BardSkye]

If you're going to steal ideas, you might as well be blatant about it, right? Hey, it works for television.