Massacre of The Innocents - Historicity

Historicity

The single account of the Massacre comes in the Gospel of Matthew: it is not mentioned elsewhere in the gospels or by the Roman Jewish historian, Josephus (37 – c. 100).

Modern liberal scholarship, says Marcus Borg, regards the biblical accounts of the birth of Jesus as symbolic narratives rather than factual history. According to Paul L. Maier, the majority of Herod biographers and theologians hold that the Massacre of the Innocents is "legend and not historical": Geza Vermes and E. P. Sanders, for example, regard the story as part of a creative hagiography. Robert Eisenman argues that the story may have its origins in Herod's murder of his own sons, an act which made a deep impression at the time and which was recorded by Josephus. Other arguments against historicity include the silence of Josephus (who does record several other examples of Herod’s willingness to commit such acts to protect his power, noting that he "never stopped avenging and punishing every day those who had chosen to be of the party of his enemies") and the views that the story is an apologetic device or a constructed fulfilment of prophesy.

Some biblical scholars hold a generally sceptical view of the incident's historicity. Whilst acknowledging that the episode "contains nothing that is historically impossible" Hill says that Matthew's "real concern is ... with theological reflection on the theme of OT fulfilment".

R. T. France argues for plausibility on the grounds, inter alia, that “the murder of a few infants in a small village not on a scale to match the more spectacular assassinations recorded by Josephus”; Schnackenburg follows this line also, and Gordon Franz points to Josephus' failure to mention other pivotal events in the first century AD, such as "the episode of the golden Roman shields in Jerusalem which was the cause of the bad blood between Herod Antipas and Pontus (sic) Pilate". In similar vein Barclay follows Carr in finding Josephus' silence not relevant, drawing a parallel with the diarist John Evelyn's failure to mention the massacre at Glencoe. Maier argues that sceptics have tended to "regard opinion as fact, and have largely avoided a careful historical search into the parameters of the problem". After analysing the arguments against the historicity of the infant massacre Maier concludes they all "have very serious flaws". Maier follows Jerry Knoblet in arguing for historicity based on the "identical personality profiles that emerge of Herod" in both Matthew and Josephus;