An astute and generous ruler, a brilliant general, and one of the most imaginative and energetic builders of the ancient world, Herod guided his kingdom to new prosperity and power. Yet today he is best known as the sly and murderous monarch of Matthew's Gospel, who slaughtered every male infant in Bethlehem in an unsuccessful attempt to kill the newborn Jesus, the prophesied King of the Jews. During the Middle Ages he became an image of the Antichrist: Illuminated manuscripts and Gothic gargoyles show him tearing his beard in mad fury and brandishing his sword at the luckless infants, with Satan whispering in his ear. Herod is almost certainly innocent of this crime, of which there is no report apart from Matthew's account. But children he certainly slew, including three of his own sons, along with his wife, his mother-in-law, and numerous other members of his court. Throughout his life, he blended creativity and cruelty, harmony and chaos, in ways that challenge the modern imagination.
Frankly, the article itself seems to be inconsistent: How could someone be "almost certainly innocent of this crime" when they acknowledge on the basis of historical records his many other atrocities? It hinges on the fact that no other record of the Bethlehem massacre exists outside the book of Matthew. This is not new information, and it is an issue that evangelical scholars have addressed for many years.
Here's an answer by Craig Blomberg, a professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary:
What makes the National Geographic report's statement all the more unfortunate is that it comes right in the context of fairly detailed recounting of Josephus' reports of all the cruelty and executions Herod did manufacture. Increasingly paranoid as he got older about supposed threats to his "throne," he had several of his sons and wives put to death. It would be one thing if Josephus gave one kind of portrait of Herod and Matthew a quite different one, but both sources agree entirely on Herod's ruthlessness and the specific manner it most manifested itself--repeated murders of those even slightly perceived to be a threat to his power. Reports that a boy had been born with the right ancestral credentials to reign over Israel would easily have threatened this megalomaniac from Idumea who wasn't even a Jew by birth and would never have survived the installment of someone with the right lineage.
So why didn't Josephus say anything about these babies (see Matthew 2 if you are not familiar with the story)? Because, like all other historians of his day, he was concerned to recount the events related to the kings and queens, military generals, aristocracy, and institutionalized leaders of religion of his people--not the lives and times of ordinary peasants. Bethlehem had at most 500 people and, even factoring in large families, one can scarcely imagine more than 20-25 babies affected by Herod's soldiers' raids, and perhaps less. It was a blip on the horizon of Herod's nefarious resume. It may even have been little reported in circles outside of later Christian ones.
Go here for his whole post: "National Geographic Blows It Again."
By the way, Blomberg has authored one of the commentaries that I am using in preparing my sermons on Matthew. It is very accessible and would be a good purchase for someone who wants some detail, but not too much. He also mentions R. T. France, whose commentary is another one of my sources.
No comments:
Post a Comment